Lies and False Narratives of Christianity

Like four SCOTUS justices, I'm still trying to figure out what was the basis for that law. As Justice Scalia said, with that decision overturning state referendums, we have lost the ability to govern ourselves. The courts often simply do what the elites want, see Dred Scott, Plessy v. Ferguson, and Roe v. Wade.

 

Exactly, ALL laws are an imposition of somebody's morality. Christians have as much right to be involved in public policy questions as anyone, and the basis for their vote is nobody else's business.

 

Never said that, stop making stuff up.

Funny how liberals don't object to liberal Christians being involved in politics.

Never said that. Government needs to follow the will of the people, even in areas where that will is based in religion.

Was Dr. ML King wrong for trying to impose his religious views on society? Wilberforce in his successful effort to end the slave trade?

 

States wanted jim crow laws and separate but equal.

We have a constitution for a reason

 

The constitution is the basis for our laws.

Dont like it....then change it

 

You didn't answer my questions.

The constitution says nothing about marriage, meaning that question is up to the people. I reject the notion that people with same-sex feelings are a protected class.

 

The 9th amendment says we have lots of rights not mentioned directly. The 14th says they must be applied equally.

You lost. Get over it

 

So activist judges get to pull rulings out of their rear, like Roe v. Wade? I'm not in favor of a nine person dictatorship.

No doubt what supporters of Dred Scott and Plessy v. Ferguson said. Even in the majority opinion on the gay marriage case, it was stated that opponents of gay marriage are still free to advocate that position. Deal with it.

 

Advocate for anything you want. You lost so it's kind of pointless but advocate away.

This is the system we have....take it or leave it

 

IMHO it is a corrupt system, that pretends to follow the constitution.

 

The door leaving the country is wide open

 

Tell that to the illegal aliens.

 

You do that Robert. Lol

 

So why do you fight bitterly over the second amendment?

 

The law is that government can't discriminate without there being a serious justification that pertains to the legitimate interests of government.

The only attempts to justify discrimination by government against same sex couples have been based in religion - which is not a legitimate interest of government. You see it as sin, so you want to use government to make it illegal. Sorry. It doesn't work that way.

Scalia stated in his dissent in the Texas sodomy case (Lawrence v Texas) that given that SC ruling, there would be no further way to prevent same sex marriage. He was hoping that sodomy laws could become so strong as to form a justification for making same sex marriage illegal!!

And, he suggests that same sex marriage and legal abortions means we can't govern ourselves???

Please. This whole topic is just a demonstration of how crazy Scalia was.

 

I love the second amendment.

Going to a gun show this weekend

 

Our constitution certainly does NOT agree with you on THAT idea!!

 

Scalia is well recognized for his brilliance. Even his cohort on the bench, the woman justice, the old old one, was his friend.
This government of these united states has long discriminated. Way way way back. Supposedly we are the government, the way Democrats explain it. But we are not the Government. We hire government. Alexandria Ocasio Cortez simply voted until she became government.

 

You keep talking and it constantly brings to light the fundamental error of the Democrats mind.

 

Where you will find that there is no gun show loophole.

 

Of course there is.

How silly

 

You meant to say there is not.

 

You meant to say .......flippitty bippitty. Lol

 

Every American should be involved - I have not objected to participation by anyone.

You have to realize that our constitution requires equal treatment. There can be exceptions accepted by the courts when the legitimate objective of government is furthered. And example is that we have a social safety net, but exclude those who don't meet tests of need. The catch with your ideas is that religion is not a justification for discrimination by government.

You DO suggest that government should be the arbiter of religion when you suggest that purely religious precepts be enforced on all citizens.

BTW: Your examples don't support your argument.

 

I know. So flippitty bippitty. There now you get it.