While I voted "yes" to allowing it, I object to the premise that we are divided by gun toter religious nuts and socialist nuts. But if California wants independence for whatever reason, let them go. The same applies to Texas and every other state. If my wife wants a divorce, who has the right to force her to stay in my bed?
Yes, our divisions are far more complicated than I portrayed. But that wasn't the purpose of the discussion, so I simplified it in attempt to reduce tangents.
OK, I fixed it. 1. How about conservatives refuse to accept liberals in office to the point if conservatives win, they do nothing except throw tantrums and call for investigation after investigation and even create false reports to obtain warrants to spy without any credible evidence to support their claims? 2. Because like a cancer, they've been embedded into our schools and university's and are brainwashing oh kids all across the nation. 3. Because they've seated corrupt conservative judges all across the nation to rule in favor of their corruption especially regarding sanctuary cities. 4. Because conservatives have suppressed the vote and are planning to use the false flag of illegals to suppress more votes. Bottom line Republicans in offices these days are horrible corrupt SOCIOPATHS completely driven by power. The Dems will take the country back over the next six years.
Nice a priori bomb you have there. Convincing. So.. your reason for not letting them go is based on fantastic paranoia rather than reason. Got it - thanks.
That is some serious projection, Jake. I thought you were kidding because I generally give people the benefit of the doubt. But apparently not.
IN A HEARTBEAT! Let the hyperliberal Left cluster together in their own, separated 'shithole' countries, like the Republik of Kalifornia, the Republik of New York, and where ever else these morons congregate as a large majority. The rest of us can maintain and prosper in the real United States of America, free of their idiotic contamination. Let the libs go off and create their own socialist "paradises" -- and NEVER COME BACK!
Either you don't know what that means or you're lying. Which do you prefer? Sure, I'm every bit as paranoid and unreasonable as Reagan or Churchill. What you've got is what you had to begin with. Which is nothing. Is that a serious question?
Prior to the American War between the States, I would approve of secession. Now, the precedent is that secession is not allowed. The above wouldn't be so easy to do.
Define "binding." Is that a government or Biblical bound? What should the government do to a woman who leaves her husband? Of course there may be government rendered penalties for absolving an agreement, but the government can't force you to adhere to them. Stormy violated hers and now owes a bunch of money. Enlighten me.
I hardly think that's necessary. It can be a legal and/or moral bond. In the case of marriage, state laws being what they are these days, it's probably just moral. In the case of secession it's both. The state gov't should do whatever the people of that state have empowered it to do, assuming it squares with the Constitution. Not really germane here in any case.
yguy may be talking about conservative Jewish, Christian, and Muslim contract bindings. As long as the contracts don't violate the Constitution, they are binding.
They would automatically violate the Constitution if Rabbis, Priests, & Imams depend on government to enforce the bonds. Of course government can enforce the secular side of the contract, but that amounts to assessing child support, alimony, and dividing assets. Not forcing one to stay with a spouse. And no religion can imprison a wayward husband or wife. So the religious authority boils down to simply excommunicating a person or banishing them from the religious community. Binding? It depends on what the meaning of "binding" is. I can bail out of a marriage if I don't mind losing my mobile home and pickup truck.
