while many think that the ruling is good for the gays and their response is: how does that affect your marriage; then on the other side the religious people cry god and sinners.
but both are missing the forest through the trees.. the problem with the ruling is that which is discussed here so many times.
five unelected federal officials decided on policy for the whole country, running roughshod over every democratic principle.
JG,
If any of the other justices had ever been involved with a hetero marriage, that would have had as much to do with their ability to rule objectively as the two justices you mention. That is a false argument. A red herring. But one mentioned routinely on the R Wing Fundie sites and by their leaders.
while many think that the ruling is good for the gays and their response is: how does that affect your marriage; then on the other side the religious people cry god and sinners.
but both are missing the forest through the trees.. the problem with the ruling is that which is discussed here so many times.
five unelected federal officials decided on policy for the whole country, running roughshod over every democratic principle.
SS,
Great video. I've been to West Point Military Academy several times. I've not met this gentlemen, but I have a close friend who is a counselor there, and one of their Lts. helped me with putting together an Intelligence Analysis course I taught a few years ago. "States' Rights,' when used by the Rush ditto heads, is a cover for hate.
OC,
Great post. The US Constitution was a visionary document put together by men who understood that majority rules have their place in a democracy and should be honored and protected. They also understood the rights of the individual - and those in the minority - when they crafted both our government, how the votes are tallied for the POTUS and especially the Constitution. It was and is a utilitarian, for the common good of all document.
Clearly, the R Wing and x-tian Fundies do not have a clue how the Constitution works.
while many think that the ruling is good for the gays and their response is: how does that affect your marriage; then on the other side the religious people cry god and sinners.
but both are missing the forest through the trees.. the problem with the ruling is that which is discussed here so many times.
five unelected federal officials decided on policy for the whole country, running roughshod over every democratic principle.
SS,
Ditto. I've noticed over the past few years that a lot of R wing Fundie types are using the constitutional/states' rights argument. It isn't that the states' rights argument isn't valid at times, but when it comes to issues that are for the common good, that are utilitarian in nature, the Constitution is the final arbiter.
Imperfect humans interpret that document; they haven't always gotten it right, but thankfully, over time, the SCOTUS fixes their mistakes and gets it right. They got it right this time.
The Fundie types often use the states' rights argument to re-write history. Recently I heard a close friend of mine (a x-tian R wing fundie, yes I have friends of all stripes) state that the Civil War wasn't about slavery - it was about states' rights. That's nothing but a parroting of the Grand Poobas of hate, such as Rush. There are so many historical documents from the old S that show clearly the Civil War was about slavery. States' rights were a secondary issue, and Fundies try to use it now to justify hate.
That's serving as the backdrop for Rat's rant. The x-tian Fundies hate is clear (god hates fangs and sodomy); the politico fundies try to put a more pleasant looking bow on their package of hate. State rights is that bow.
hello friends!today is a sad day for me, as seven months have gone by since my mother passed away after a decades-long fight with breast cancer..
because the witnessing/preaching/teaching work doesn't make any sense to me anymore; because it's not about any "truth"; and because it's basically useless, i've decided to quit doing it.
instead, i've decided to do something that actually can make a real difference in other people's lives.
Ms. Eden,
I am very proud of you. I volunteered quite a bit after exiting the cult 2 decades ago; it was very rewarding. Thank you for sharing; your presence on this site, along with Mr. Eden, is uplifting to all of us.
while many think that the ruling is good for the gays and their response is: how does that affect your marriage; then on the other side the religious people cry god and sinners.
but both are missing the forest through the trees.. the problem with the ruling is that which is discussed here so many times.
five unelected federal officials decided on policy for the whole country, running roughshod over every democratic principle.
JG,
Some may have cried as you state, but the majority of gays and those supporting their cause understood that the ruling could go either way (just like the perfect GF). As jws points out, they were in it for the long run and would have re-directed their efforts to the individual states.
Our federal and state governments confer enormous economic and social privileges to married couples. Prohibiting same sex couples from being legally identified kept them from such privileges and benefits, even though many gay and lesbian couples have been together for many, many years.
And you two haters are OK with that. You two are on the losing side of history. Your kind did the same thing in the civil rights' era. Now they are dead or have STFU. Just as you will.
Now stop whining.
Happy B-day PurrPurr
(Is it just me or are the cats taking over on this site? - not that it is a bad thing!)
i may take my fiance to a meeting.
give them fake names and just see how my fiance reacts.
he's been curious about seeing what i hated so much about the whole thing (not that he'll really understand everything, i mean of course he never will to my extent but)... i'd like to see what an outsiders view on the whole thing would be as well.
OneStep,
I've seen your picture; they won't be looking at him.
arctic has gained hundreds of miles of ice the last three years.
red shows the september 2012 minimum extent.
green shows the current extent, which is likely the minimum for 2015. the arctic has gained hundreds of miles of ice over the past three years, much of which is thick, multi-year ice.. article.
Besty,
Thanks for the video link. What annoys the living hell out of me about revdip and those like him is that they could have found this link and similar information with a simple web search. They prefer to listen to sound bites coming from Rush and other Fundies, parroting their brain dead mantras without so much as a second thought.
Sadly, there are lots of people like revdip. Most of them thankfully are in the same generational group; here's hoping these people either completely lose their influence on decisions that are made about such things as climate change - or die off in time for those coming behind them to fix social and environmental problems in time.
It should be embarrassing to the revdips of the world. Sadly, it isn't.
humanity is like a ship, and holes are our hobbies (lust, greed etc.
which are fondly renamed as each one likes) which always have been outperforming what science could accomplish!
most of the greater or significant scientific achievements started from 19th centurymay be with the commercial transmission of electricity!
Ask Ms. "everything is digital" if she would trade now for the 85,000 years or so when humans were hunters/gatherers and you and your family were always on the move looking for a sustainable food supply. And, once you found it, your little clan had to keep it quiet or fight off the other clans and hordes who found out about your land of honey and sought to slaughter you for it. Feeding, Fighting, Fleeing and Fu, I mean Procreation - that's pretty much what humans did for 85,000 years.
Do you think any of the whiners today would trade for that? Would Ms. "I hate I-pads" rather live during that time, when half of her children died at birth or within the first two years of life? When she might live to be a ripe old age of 34? When, as a woman, she was property? (well, that was kinda neat - IF YOU WERE A GUY).
humanity is like a ship, and holes are our hobbies (lust, greed etc.
which are fondly renamed as each one likes) which always have been outperforming what science could accomplish!
most of the greater or significant scientific achievements started from 19th centurymay be with the commercial transmission of electricity!
Yes, it is so bad now. Would you have preferred to live in the 100,000 or so years before 1900 when the average life expectancy was 24 - 34? How about in cities during the 1700s and 1800s when cholera and TB were killing millions - problems that have largely gone away with hygiene, water/wastewater treatment and medical technologies.
You whine about what you and others don't like about the right now. Trade it for some other time in our recent or distant past. Pick a time. Humans were far more violent than now, and the haves and have nots were determined exclusively by who had the largest sword or biggest army. The distribution of wealth doesn't solve all of the problems, but it has led to a better standard of living for the have nots than at any time in human history.
For 100,000 years there were no programs such as welfare, food stamps, social security, medical and healthcare insurance. You whine because things aren't perfect and claim the current situation is evidence of Last Days. Dear god, we are living in Paradise compared to the first 100,000 years of human history.
