Will Queers still be allowed to 'Marry' ?

Will Queers still be allowed to 'Marry' ?

  • Yes. Many Christians are Queer.

    Votes: 3 50.0%

  • No. Queers are an abomination. (it's in the Bible)

    Votes: 1 16.7%

  • It has to be called something else. (Parriage, Civil Union)

    Votes: 2 33.3%
  • Total voters
    6
  • Poll closed .
Damocles said:
Jack wants to pretend that Sotomayor would vote with "Jesus first" because: Catholic... Unless he is a hypocrite and only cares if it is a rightwinger Catholic.

The reality is, his "religious test" is itself against the constitution (and directly so, it says no religious test should be applied). Any nominee should simply tell them so when they ask about it.

There are currently 5 Catholics on the Supreme Court, it is just "this one" that Jack worries about because he doesn't want this President to nominate anybody...

Too late.
Click to expand...

No.

People call themselves 'Jews' or 'Catholics' or 'Protestants', or Muslims', etc. ... but aren't really 'Devout'. This Barrett woman looks like a Fanatic. (see 'People of Praise')
 
Legion said:
Key words:

Get back to me if you can ever prove that she wasn't able to set her personal beliefs aside.
Click to expand...

Can you prove that about any Justice?

4glb8o.jpg
 
Jack said:
No.

People call themselves 'Jews' or 'Catholics' or 'Protestants', or Muslims', etc. ... but aren't really 'Devout'. This Barrett woman looks like a Fanatic. (see 'People of Praise')
Click to expand...

So, yes, you are a hypocrite. The leftist dogma is strong in this one. You would be somebody I would immediately vote against. You don't even understand that the Constitution itself is directly, and not just sorta, against this nonsense of "religious test"...

She's never ruled that way as an Appeals court judge, you know why? Because she's a good judge. Even you know it, you would just rather be a anti-catholic religious bigot than follow the constitution. Thankfully Amy Coney Barrett isn't like you.
 
Jackoff said:
People call themselves 'Jews' or 'Catholics' or 'Protestants', or Muslims', etc. ... but aren't really 'Devout'. This Barrett woman looks like a Fanatic. (see 'People of Praise')
Click to expand...

"Looks like"...to people who desperately want to keep another Trump appointee off the Court.

Too late. "Looks like" she's going to be confirmed, and maybe before the election.
 
Damocles said:
So, yes, you are a hypocrite. The leftist dogma is strong in this one. You would be somebody I would immediately vote against. You don't even understand that the Constitution itself is directly, and not just sorta, against this nonsense of "religious test"...

She's never ruled that way as an Appeals court judge, you know why? Because she's a good judge. Even you know it, you would just rather be a anti-catholic religious bigot than follow the constitution. Thankfully Amy Coney Barrett isn't like you.
Click to expand...

:laugh: I support 'Man's Law' and DON'T want the 'Religious types' influencing any Laws in the United States.

I'm singling out Barrett for her affiliation with the 'People of Praise' and her comments.
Do you want me to re-post the site and her words for the third time so you don't have to go back and look for it?
 
Jack said:
:laugh: I support 'Man's Law' and DON'T want the 'Religious types' influencing any Laws in the United States.

I'm singling out Barrett for her affiliation with the 'People of Praise' and her comments.
Do you want me to re-post the site and her words for the third time so you don't have to go back and look for it?
Click to expand...

Why do you single out "religious types" over "gay types", "straight types", "white types", "Mexican types" or anything else?
 
Dutch Uncle said:
Why do you single out "religious types" over "gay types", "straight types", "white types", "Mexican types" or anything else?
Click to expand...

I have NO PROBLEM with 'Gays', 'Straights', 'White', Mexican', etc. 'THEY' aren't trying to turn a secular America into a 'Christian Nation' under 'Biblical Law'.
 
Jack said:
HA! I've read enough. My opinion is that 'Roe v Wade' will be overturned and that 'something' will happen to 'Gay Marriage'.
Click to expand...
Just your opinion....that is all....You'll learn to appreciate what a wonderful choice she is....
Seriously...what is not to like? The president chose her doesn't count;)
 
Damocles said:
Jack wants to pretend that Sotomayor would vote with "Jesus first" because: Catholic... Unless he is a hypocrite and only cares if it is a rightwinger Catholic.

The reality is, his "religious test" is itself against the constitution (and directly so, it says no religious test should be applied). Any nominee should simply tell them so when they ask about it.

There are currently 5 Catholics on the Supreme Court, it is just "this one" that Jack worries about because he doesn't want this President to nominate anybody...

Too late.
Click to expand...

Agreed. He dodged the question about Ginsburg and her religion or gender just as he dodged about putting 9 Gay Atheists on the bench.
 
Dutch Uncle said:
Agreed. He dodged the question about Ginsburg and her religion or gender just as he dodged about putting 9 Gay Atheists on the bench.
Click to expand...

I thought I made it PERFECTLY CLEAR.

Religious types take the Bible literally and have an Agenda, a 'Christian Agenda'.
If you look at 'People and Praise' and you read her words, it seems INESCAPABLE that she has a 'Christian Agenda' at heart.

Dutch: "He dodged the question about Ginsburg and her religion or gender"
Jack: She hasn't manifested herself as a 'Religious Quack'.

Dutch: "he dodged about putting 9 Gay Atheists on the bench."
Jack: Pretty sure '9 Gay Atheists' won't be supporting 'Biblical Law'.

Did we clear that up, or still confused?
 
Jack said:
I thought I made it PERFECTLY CLEAR.

Religious types take the Bible literally and have an Agenda, a 'Christian Agenda'.
If you look at 'People and Praise' and you read her words, it seems INESCAPABLE that she has a 'Christian Agenda' at heart.

Dutch: "He dodged the question about Ginsburg and her religion or gender"
Jack: She hasn't manifested herself as a 'Religious Quack'.

Dutch: "he dodged about putting 9 Gay Atheists on the bench."
Jack: Pretty sure '9 Gay Atheists' won't be supporting 'Biblical Law'.

Did we clear that up, or still confused?
Click to expand...

You're the one who keeps advocating that anyone who is religious will put religion over their oath to support the Constitution. By your logic, the United States military is the militant arm of the Protestants.
 
Dutch Uncle said:
You're the one who keeps advocating that anyone who is religious will put religion over their oath to support the Constitution. By your logic, the United States military is the militant arm of the Protestants.
Click to expand...

:) "You're the one who keeps advocating that anyone who is religious will put religion over their oath to support the Constitution."

No. Most DON'T take the Bible literally. Some actually do. My position is that Barrett is one that takes the Bible literally. And would put her 'Oath to God' above her 'Oath to the Constitution'.
Her own words:
"She told a 2006 Notre Dame law school graduating class, "Your legal career is but a means to an end, and ... that end is building the kingdom of God. ... If you can keep in mind that your fundamental purpose in life is not to be a lawyer, but to know, love and serve God, you truly will be a different kind of lawyer." "
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-evangelical-faith-leaders-ahead-supreme-court

Seems clear to me.
 
Jack said:
:) "You're the one who keeps advocating that anyone who is religious will put religion over their oath to support the Constitution."

No. Most DON'T take the Bible literally. Some actually do. My position is that Barrett is one that takes the Bible literally. And would put her 'Oath to God' above her 'Oath to the Constitution'.
Her own words:
"She told a 2006 Notre Dame law school graduating class, "Your legal career is but a means to an end, and ... that end is building the kingdom of God. ... If you can keep in mind that your fundamental purpose in life is not to be a lawyer, but to know, love and serve God, you truly will be a different kind of lawyer." "
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-evangelical-faith-leaders-ahead-supreme-court

Seems clear to me.
Click to expand...

Soooooo.....you have already prejudged her to be a fucking scumbag liar who has violated her oath all of these years. Got any evidence she's done this?
 
Jack said:
Well, that's the beauty of it.

1. Queers will call it 'Marriage', and have the EXACT same Rights as any other married couple.
2. The Jesus Freaks will gladly point out it's NOT MARRIAGE, and be able to legally point out it's a 'Civil Union' (or what ever it's eventually called).

Both sides will 'Win'. Or at least claim one.
Click to expand...

Did you run this past the Log Cabin Republicans?

Like Legion, Truth Deflector, and Arminius?








LOL!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top