Lawmakers to introduce legislation next week repealing DOMA.
Lawmakers to introduce legislation next week repealing DOMA.
Next week, Democratic Reps. Jerrold Nadler (NY), Tammy Baldwin (WI), and Jared Polis (CO) will be introducinglegislation to repeal the Clinton-era Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which “defines marriage as a legal union between one man and one woman for purposes of all federal laws.” From their press release sent out today:
Next Tuesday, Congressman Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), Chair of the House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, Congresswoman Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), and Congressman Jared Polis (D-CO) will introduce legislation to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), a law which discriminates against lawfully married same-sex couples.The legislators will be joined by married same-sex couples harmed by DOMA and many of the country’s premier LGBT and civil rights advocates in a press conference to announce the new bill, at 11:00am on Tuesday, September 15, 2009, at the House Triangle, near the southern steps of the U.S. Capitol in Washington, D.C.
The Advocate reports that “the bill currently has just over 50 cosponsors, but Congressman Nadler’s office has not yet officially circulated a letter to his fellow House members.” Last June, President Obama offered his views on a congressional repeal of DOMA: “I believe it’s discriminatory, I think it interferes with states’ rights, and we will work with Congress to overturn it.” The Human Rights Campaign has launched a new campaign aimed around repealing DOMA. Access their action page here.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
While I would be thrilled for the repeal of DOMA…I’m just a bit concerned about the timing compared to all the stuff that is currently on the table.
September 11th, 2009 at 3:31 pmYES!!
This is a great thing.
But I must agree with SoapBox. Is this really the right time? Perhaps with the healthcare debate in full swing, it won’t be as prominent, leading to less audible vitriol. I mean, we all know that the wingnutjobs are utterly incapable of paying attention to more than one issue at a time, and as important as it apparently is to them to prove that they’re “Christians” by going out of their way to misinterpret a 2,000 year old fairy tale and try to make it the law of the land, “socialism” is still a scary word.
September 11th, 2009 at 3:37 pm.
Battering rams ready!
.
September 11th, 2009 at 3:37 pmI wish this ‘coming out’ would be tomorrow in D.C.
Beck’s head would spontaneously explode on live TV.
I can’t imagine a better demise for that subhuman…
September 11th, 2009 at 3:38 pmSoapBox @ 1
But just think how a frenzy of homophobia could keep the teabaggers distracted while we push healthcare through!
September 11th, 2009 at 3:39 pmhey cancervatives,
September 11th, 2009 at 3:40 pma bit of free advice directly from me to you: if you’re against gay marriage, don’t get involved in one.
Hot damn!
This will have been a long time coming. Granted, it will still be an incredibly close vote…and one that likely can’t be done through reconciliation.
It’ll probably pass the House by 2 dozen votes, but the Senate will be a hell of a challenge.
September 11th, 2009 at 3:42 pm.
Q U E S T I O N:
When is it ever convienient to affect “CHANGE”?
.
September 11th, 2009 at 3:43 pm… or perhaps a victory on this bill would embolden Democrats to actually have some confidence in their ability to pass meaningful legislation, thus “priming the pump”, so to speak, for meaningful health care reform?
September 11th, 2009 at 3:43 pmsmidget says
September 11th, 2009 at 3:37 pm
I mean, we all know that the wingnutjobs are utterly incapable of paying attention to more than one issue at a time…
____________________________________________________________
Quite right. So is this an opportunity to get DOMA repealed while they’re all focused on health care? Or is it merely being introduced as a shiny object to draw them away from health care so some actual progress can be made on that issue?
I see possible exploding heads as conservatives stand at the fork in the road trying to decide which way to go.
September 11th, 2009 at 3:45 pmObama: Beep Beep motherfu(kers, we’re coming through.
September 11th, 2009 at 3:46 pm#6 Bozo,
… Because we all know that the only threat I pose to the sanctity of a heterosexual marriage is to one who’s husband is in the closet.
.
September 11th, 2009 at 3:47 pmAll I can say it’s about time discrimination against one American is discrimination against all Americans
September 11th, 2009 at 3:48 pmIs this the right time to repeal DOMA? My god, yes! Repeal DOMA. Repeal the Bush tax cuts. Do away wit DADT. Decriminalize marijuana. Industrialize hemp. The wingers already think we’re nuts, and will try to block anything the Dems in DC do, so full steam ahead, mates!
September 11th, 2009 at 3:48 pmDems, you have the majority, do you have the guts?
Good. This is long overdue.
September 11th, 2009 at 3:49 pmA list of current Dems in the Senate who voted in favour of DOMA (so people know exactly who to pressure…and, yes, i’m aware a number of these people have changed their views over the years. this just serves as a reminder.)
Dodd
September 11th, 2009 at 3:50 pmLieberman
Harkin
Mikulski
Levin
Baucus
Reid
Lautenberg
Bingaman
Dorgan
Conrad
Specter
Byrd
Rockefeller
Kohl
where are the “tenthers” now…afterall, it’s not stated in the constitution that the federal government has the power to declare marriage is between a man and woman.
September 11th, 2009 at 3:50 pmThe fundies are already pissed off, or posing like they’re pissed off. If the Rethugs go after defending DOMA and move their attention away from healthcare reform, will their base follow?
What will the rightie sheeple do? Whom to hate first?
A case can be made for just completely freaking out the ReichRight all at once. With their focus splintered, this could actually be a great time to get a lot of meaningful legislation moving.
Progress does NOT have to happen at a pace dictated (or impeded) by the Rethugs.
September 11th, 2009 at 3:54 pm“So is this an opportunity to get DOMA repealed while they’re all focused on health care? Or is it merely being introduced as a shiny object to draw them away from health care so some actual progress can be made on that issue?”
Either one would be fine, because both are issues that need to be dealt with. However, healthcare reform probably stands a better chance of making it through the mudslinging fit than gay marriage does, because we have a lot of bigots in this country that actually think it’s acceptable to let the majority determine the civil rights of a minority. It’s a matter of which is more important to them – not allowing the government to interfere in health care by offering you yet another insurance option (doesn’t really sound like interference to me, to be frank about it), or forcing the government into citizen’s bedrooms? They may sound like opposing opinions, but Republicans have learned to just ignore the cognitive dissonance.
Time will tell how this will go. I suspect badly, but I have great hope.
September 11th, 2009 at 3:54 pmIt’s about time – I don’t care if the timing seems bad – the right-wingnuts are going to freak out no matter what, so maybe if a bunch of progressive ideas get pushed through, their little pin-heads will just explode.
September 11th, 2009 at 3:54 pmIt will be a great day when the federal government recognizes any marriage between two people legally performed in any of the 50 states. This will allow all legally married couples to file joint tax returns, get spousal Social Security benefits, and enjoy all the other benefits (and cope with all the responsibilities) that heterosexual married couples get on a national level.
There’s a lot of work to be done, and getting DOMA repealed is just the first step. But at least it’s a step in the right direction.
September 11th, 2009 at 3:55 pmObama stated his opinion was that it is discrimatory,
and interfered with states rights.
Sounds pretty tenth amendmentish……
September 11th, 2009 at 3:55 pmThis could get gooood!
It would have been better timing to introduce the legislation today, seeing as Gordon Brown gave a public apology regarding war hero, Alan Turing.
September 11th, 2009 at 3:56 pmSeveral people have made some good points.
Maybe now is the time to introduce this, and lots of other legislation that we’ve been waiting for the support to pursue. Republicans move in lockstep, but you can’t move as a single unit if you have to split up.
September 11th, 2009 at 3:57 pmCant wait for the new republican meme: Obama wants your grandmother to go gay he’ll pull the plug.
September 11th, 2009 at 3:57 pmExcellent! The extreme right is going to have a hissy about anything even the moderate Democrats do. So, let’s do it all. There are more of us. They are just more vocal. Let’s give them so many topics to be vocal about that no single issue can gain the same strength of opposition as the healthcare reform issue did. Divide their forces by presenting many fronts. They will be weaker for it while we will be stronger.
September 11th, 2009 at 4:00 pmOooooh, the RepubliSCUMS are going to have a hissy…
September 11th, 2009 at 4:00 pmi saved you from the negative, soapbox…
i hear you… thought the same thing at first…
then decided, what the hell… give ‘em everything at once…
GO FOR IT.
ALL OF IT.
NOW.
September 11th, 2009 at 4:01 pmThey should remove any benefit from marriage from the federal tax laws.
People who choose to live together for 15 years and not partake in the whole thing should not be penalized.
September 11th, 2009 at 4:01 pm“‘em” being the frighties… all of them – reps and civies…
September 11th, 2009 at 4:02 pmThere may be more supporters in the House because certain members may support the idea but are worried about a backlash so I’m looking for more yea votes when it comes to the floor.
September 11th, 2009 at 4:03 pmI love the screen name, Acorn. In my mind’s eye, I picture this tiny little nut shaped head with a cute face and an adorable little cap. It’s such a tiny head that it obviously cannot house a very substantial brain. But it’s so darn cute.
September 11th, 2009 at 4:07 pmActually their is a divide appearing in the (R)conservative camp…
September 11th, 2009 at 4:07 pm
Pop! Pop! Pop!
The Reichwing heads explode.
September 11th, 2009 at 4:08 pmBad timing? Are you kidding? This is the best time. Get it DOMA repealed and use it as a wedge against bigotry. Use it to go against the hate mongers that are in office to show just how much they despise their fellow Americans!
September 11th, 2009 at 4:08 pmThe alternative reality is beginning to dissipate as hive minders wander from the fog and into the light
_¸,.·`·.,__¸,.·`·.,__¸,.·`·.,__¸,.·`·.,__¸,.·`·.,__¸,.·`·.,_
I see a nut in a tree trying to catch a squirrel
September 11th, 2009 at 4:15 pmHi ACORN
September 11th, 2009 at 4:18 pmWhy do I get the feeling you will be eaten by a squirrel and never become a mighty oak?
hey!
the lindsthy graham almost clapping thing that i thought i saw the other night – randi rhodes saw it too!
OR, maybe she read my comment! ah hahaha!
yes, i remember someone here saying he saw it also…
sorry, i forgot the name…
i’d like to see that clip again…
September 11th, 2009 at 4:19 pmYou cant handle the truth nutty nut.
September 11th, 2009 at 4:20 pmoops sorry meant to say:
Cant wait for the new republican meme: Obama wants your grandmother to go gay he’ll pull the plug.
September 11th, 2009 at 4:28 pmdoh! Im a moron..one more time..
Cant wait for the new republican meme: Obama wants your grandmother to go gay OR he’ll pull the plug.
September 11th, 2009 at 4:28 pmdbadass says: Hi ACORN Why do I get the feeling you will be eaten by a squirrel and never become a mighty oak?
I doubt that a squirrel would choose such a rotten specimen. And I also doubt that this nut is fertile so I don’t see a mighty oak growing. Fungus, maybe.
September 11th, 2009 at 4:29 pmNow that the right wing has given up on health care reform, and I really believe they have after Obama’s speech, this will give them the something else to go all tea party over.
September 11th, 2009 at 4:31 pmThis comment has been voted down. Click to read.
I forget some of my mycology. Aren’t there a few choice species that grow in the detritus of rotten wannabe oaks…
September 11th, 2009 at 4:34 pmHi conservative guy. Before you run away can I offer you a nice red and some potato leek soup? It’s homemade…
September 11th, 2009 at 4:35 pmSoapBox says:
While I would be thrilled for the repeal of DOMA…I’m just a bit concerned about the timing compared to all the stuff that is currently on the table.
I think it’ll split the right-wing’s attention more than the left. Dems just have to do the job of legislating. Wingnuts would have to argue about how government programs to help people equates to dictatorship, while at the same time insisting that gay people can’t have the same rights as everybody else. That’s just too confusing to connect with the main stream.
.
Acorn says:
Given Barry’s opposition to “gay marriage” you can be sure he’ll veto any attempt to change this.
You didn’t actually read the quote from the White House up at the top there, did you? Or the fact that this constitutes doing something about it?
September 11th, 2009 at 4:35 pmconservative guy says: Luckily my state doesn’t allow gay marriage.
I hear you. Sometimes you just need an outside agency to insure that you resist some of your impulses. I know that I would probably drive too fast if it weren’t for those speed limits on the highways.
September 11th, 2009 at 4:36 pmTundra, there isn’t really any benefit to being married regarding federal taxes. There are probably a few benefits int here somewhere, but most people don’t get them.
There used to be a marriage penalty – the standard deduction for a married couple was less than double the standard deduction for a single person. Now that isn’t the case. The married SD is exactly double the single SD.
Married people are more likely to have other situations that benefit them, like mortgage interest and kids which allow for further exemptions and deductions, but that’s not the same as having marriage benefits with regard to federal taxes.
I personally feel that you should have the option of filing a joint tax return with the other members of your household without necessarily claiming them as dependents. But that’s probably just my wishing that my husband and I could have filed joint returns when we were living together, just to cut down on the amount of work I had to do since I was the one who prepared the returns.
September 11th, 2009 at 4:37 pmconservative guy says:
Luckily my state doesn’t allow gay marriage.
Confusion or just Stupidity?
September 11th, 2009 at 4:45 pmdbadass, it just so happens that I have a mushroom growing website on my favorites list which indicates that shiitakes, namekos, and Lion’s mane all grow well on oak logs. I don’t think tiny infertile and immature acorns would be sufficient for them. So, I guess I was wrong about the fungi.
September 11th, 2009 at 4:45 pmBTW, tenthers, the 10th Amendment says that the powers not granted to the federal government in the Constitution are left to the States or TO THE PEOPLE. There is nothing in the Constitution that permits the federal government to decide who someone can or cannot marry. Further, the Constitution does prohibit laws based exclusively on religious dogma and requires equal protection of rights. Marriage is a decision that must be left TO THE PEOPLE wanting to get married.
September 11th, 2009 at 4:49 pmSmidget:
I was looking through the tax tables and came up with my place. I could save a considerable amount of money by getting married.
Single:
25% on the income between $33,950 and $82,250; plus $4,675.00
Married:
September 11th, 2009 at 4:50 pm15% on the income between $16,700 and $67,900; plus $1,670.00
Bozo The Neoclown says:
hey cancervatives,
a bit of free advice directly from me to you: if you’re against gay marriage, don’t get involved in one.
September 11th, 2009 at 3:40 pm
That is good advice, and bit will take it a step further.
Don’t get involved and don’t not recognize one either; that is, don’t call sexual perversion between two same-same gender people a marriage, because it isn’t a marriage.
bit doesn’t believe anyone has established the authority to call two same-same gender people married.
Look for polygamist to take advantage of additional moves to redefine marriage. Defense attorneys for accused polygamist are already using the same arguments used by those who promote so called same-same gender marriage. These are the arguments which put the burden of proof on those who object, not on those who want to allow SSGM.
bit doesn’t think he’s heard the reasons that SSGM should be licensed, only those arguments as to why it shouldn’t be denied.
September 11th, 2009 at 4:54 pmPLC,
Come on now you aren’t going to seriously use that argument are you? While I fully support your stance on it, there are a whole lot of things that fall under “says that the powers not granted to the federal government in the Constitution are left to the States ” I have a feeling you would refuse to acknowledge.
September 11th, 2009 at 4:55 pmTundra, you poor unknowing soul! While you might save TAX money by getting married, be assured that that’s the only place while in every other area you will spend more money. Besides, with the attitude you often display, you really should consider the even greater cost of divorce.
September 11th, 2009 at 4:55 pmPlc,
Besides, with the attitude you often display, you really should consider the even greater cost of divorce.
Heck been divorced twice, well aware of the costs.
While you might save TAX money by getting married, be assured that that’s the only place while in every other area you will spend more money.
September 11th, 2009 at 4:59 pmAnd that is so nice of the government to help me be a good little consumer.
dbadass – I’ve been fortunate enough to have something that the Italian grandmother I know calls ‘nosca’ (not sure of the spelling and I can’t find it in google). She also called it ‘hen of the woods’ and she fried it and simmered it in tomato sauce and it was one of the best things I’ve ever had!
It grows at the base of oak trees and can be very large.
September 11th, 2009 at 5:00 pmbit further believes Christ’s remarks clearly define marriage for all those who believe in Christ;i.e., Christians. March 30th, 2009 at 10:04 am
Not everyone in the world, even in the US, is Christian. Not everyone who is Christian believes in your interpretation of Christianity and Biblical teachings. Secular laws are meant for those of all faiths and none. They are meant to insure maximum freedom and permissiveness of lifestyle. If you and other Christians holding similar dogma want to be more restrictive for yourselves, then our laws permit that as well. However, you have no right to limit the choices of others outside your group.
And Tundra, THIS is what I mean by application of the 10th Amendment – this is a power that must be left TO THE PEOPLE.
September 11th, 2009 at 5:02 pmThat is good advice, and bit will take it a step further.
Don’t get involved and don’t not recognize one either; that is, don’t call sexual perversion between two same-same gender people a marriage, because it isn’t a marriage.
belac will take this nonsense even one step further… belac does not believe that any reasonable person could be as confused as bit and that people should stop recognizing his perverted sense of self-righteousness as worthy of discussion. People should not call bit’s blatherings opinions, because they aren’t rational thoughts.
Remember bit… a theocracy is no fun for anyone, even the fundamentalists…
September 11th, 2009 at 5:02 pmkaty @ 40 -
September 11th, 2009 at 5:02 pmfound it – it was Exit Stage Left…
just wanted to make sure…
mary lacewing thinks that bitblt is obsessed with sexual perversion.
mary lacewing wonders why that is?
September 11th, 2009 at 5:02 pmHen of the woods is excellent. Chicken mushroom… Not so much…
September 11th, 2009 at 5:03 pmHi bit
September 11th, 2009 at 5:05 pmI keep throwing this stick on the ground but it refuses to turn into a serpent. Do you know what I might be doing wrong? Oh and I sort of need to be turned gay really quickly. Can you suggest an effective program for that?
Thanks so much bit. You are a peach…
This is a great move. If nothing else the Repignofascists, and regular fascists on the right will be in a freaking frenzy now. Not only do those miserable liberals want to send granny to a death panel now they want gay people parading around with wedding rings. Faux “News” will probably be adding 20 new news warpers to cover the controversy! I cant wait to watch the heads explode.
September 11th, 2009 at 5:05 pmbellaccifer lacca @5:02
Escaping theocracy and forced religious conversion was the motivation for most European migration to America, over a century before the constitution was written.
September 11th, 2009 at 5:14 pmY, CG – You weren’t around to save us from the polio vaccine, but at least you can save your State from burning to the ground and sinking into the Earth like those States that honor Gay marriages have.
you are a real, imaginary, legendary, hero in your own mind.
September 11th, 2009 at 5:20 pmThe problem, PLC, is that the poor Reichwhiners don’t want the people to have any power because someone else might get their way. We are talking about childish little freaks who will smash all the toys before allowing another to play with them. They know that they are too effing stupid to be trusted and assume everyone else is as worthless as they are.
Despite all their talk about freedom they don’t understand the concept, don’t really want it, and waste whatever freedoms they actually have in their mad scramble to submit to an authority figure who reminds them of Daddy.
Plus, it’s a waste of time to point out the disastrous nature of theocracy to a “True Christian”. They are so utterly committed to a false view of history and reality that they will never admit that theocracy ALWAYS ends badly.
September 11th, 2009 at 5:21 pmPatrioticLiberalChristian says:
bit further believes Christ’s remarks clearly define marriage for all those who believe in Christ;i.e., Christians. March 30th, 2009 at 10:04 am
Not everyone in the world, even in the US, is Christian. Not everyone who is Christian believes in your interpretation of Christianity and Biblical teachings. Secular laws are meant for those of all faiths and none. They are meant to insure maximum freedom and permissiveness of lifestyle. If you and other Christians holding similar dogma want to be more restrictive for yourselves, then our laws permit that as well. However, you have no right to limit the choices of others outside your group.
And Tundra, THIS is what I mean by application of the 10th Amendment – this is a power that must be left TO THE PEOPLE.
September 11th, 2009 at 5:02 pm
Believe bit’s remark was something like this:
Let’s see the arguments promoting the benefit of SSGM for the society.
Let’s see what authority can create a SSGM.
bit further believes Christ’s remarks clearly define marriage for all those who believe in Christ;i.e., Christians. March 30th, 2009 at 10:04 am
Christ is very clear in Matthew 19 that God joins a man and a woman together in a marriage, meaning it seems obvious to bit that God has the authority to make a marriage.
Who has the authority to join two same-same gender people together in a marriage? bit only recognizes the authority of which Christ speaks in Matthew 19.
Secular law recognizes a marriage; it doesn’t make the marriage.
http://www.mainelegislature.org/legis/bills/bills_124th/billtexts/SP038401.asp
The same proposed bill recognizes someone as having authority to join people.
bit stands that marriage is a relationship instituted by God, which is what Christ says in Matthew 19.
bit understands that either the righteous Christian view of marriage – as expressed in Matthew 19 – or the perverted, secular view of marriage will prevail. bit believes it is in the best interest of the nation to keep marriage as a one man one woman relationship.
BTW, if you have other Christian authority that carries the weight of Matthew 19, why don’t you say what it is?
September 11th, 2009 at 5:39 pmStates Rights. Butt out, Uncle Sammy.
September 11th, 2009 at 5:40 pmbit understands that either the righteous Christian view of marriage – as expressed in Matthew 19 – or the perverted, secular view of marriage will prevail. bit believes it is in the best interest of the nation to keep marriage as a one man one woman relationship.
Bit is entitled to his opinion and may express choose not to recognize these as actual marriages while bit is in church or bits private life… bit may not discriminate in public or trough the government.
Bit get it?
September 11th, 2009 at 5:44 pmkwsventures says:
States Rights. Butt out, Uncle Sammy.
Then the federal government should cease recognizing any marriage? Great…
September 11th, 2009 at 5:44 pmYou can dress a fag up all you want to…call them a civil union…gay couple…life partners…married couple…but in the end…they are still a couple of queers playing house!
September 11th, 2009 at 6:33 pmkws had to leave a little dropping here too, did he.
what a scumbag.
bitblt – you’re a crazed fanatic.
September 11th, 2009 at 6:34 pmRC – you’re a scumbag too.
a real Larry Craig-er.
piss off and let people live their lives.
clean up your own nasty righty backyard, before you run your hateful mouth about anyone else’s.
classless hump.
September 11th, 2009 at 6:35 pmRealityCheck says:
Bounce, RealityCheck. You got nothin’ either!
September 11th, 2009 at 6:41 pmBTW, if you have other Christian authority that carries the weight of Matthew 19, why don’t you say what it is?
Do you have any reason to believe that any ‘Christian authority’ should carry any weight in our Government?
What do you say to this then?
“…the Government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion;”
Treaty of Tripoli
September 11th, 2009 at 6:48 pmSo, stupid troll. How did your first week of junior high go for you? Just think. Five short years and you might actually learn enough to contribute to an adult conversation.
September 11th, 2009 at 6:58 pmbitblt says:
Christ is very clear in Matthew 19 that God joins a man and a woman together in a marriage, meaning it seems obvious to bit that God has the authority to make a marriage.
Interesting that you lot always reference passages without actually quoting the text:
It’s almost as if bitblt didn’t want us to read it, or didn’t actually read all of it yourself. Shame on bitblt.
Christ is quite clear here that divorce is not OK by God. Therefore, anybody who has remarried after a divorce is an adulterer, and lives a lifestyle of constant violation of the 7th commandment.
I don’t hear any of you bible-thumpers speaking out against adultery nearly as much as you do about teh gays. And yet Christ never mentioned homosexuality once in his entire life. Nor is it mentioned in the 10 commandments, purportedly the most important list of what to do or not do that God ever provided.
Now, I’m not actually saying that I believe divorce should be illegal. But if you’re going to advocate federal laws about who can or can’t be married on religious grounds, then I won’t even entertain your complaints about teh gays until you also spend as much or more time complaining about divorce.
Why should I listen to a Christian-based argument regarding the sanctity of marriage from somebody who doesn’t follow Christ’s own words regarding the sanctity of marriage?
.
bitblt says:
Don’t get involved and don’t not recognize one either; that is, don’t call sexual perversion between two same-same gender people a marriage, because it isn’t a marriage.
The same should therefore apply to those who get divorced and re-married. They’re expecting society to condone their lifestyle choice of adultery. So don’t call a “second marriage” a marriage.
It’s not really possible to disagree with my thesis above on a literal interpretation basis. Jesus said right there that you can’t separate any marriage for any reason. In answering a direct question about whether divorce was allowable, he said no, it is not. That’s Christ talking there.
Nevertheless, all Protestant Christians in the United States fly in the face of this admonition by their savior anyways, recognizing divorce and remarriage.
Should we have a federal law that tells them how to practice their faith by outlawing second (third, fourth, etc.) marriages? That would violate their first amendment rights. Similarly, if someone else believes that gay marriage is OK with God, having a law that tells them how to practice their faith by outlawing gay marriage would be a violation of their first amendment rights. Get it?
.
Tundra says:
Come on now you aren’t going to seriously use that argument are you? While I fully support your stance on it, there are a whole lot of things that fall under “says that the powers not granted to the federal government in the Constitution are left to the States ” I have a feeling you would refuse to acknowledge.
Yes, that’s a correct argument for this.
Article 1 Section 9 explicitly authorizes Congress to tax and spend to promote the general welfare. As the 10th Amendment only covers powers NOT given to Congress, the things that wingnuts complain about are not covered by the 10th Amendment.
The 10th Amendment would not apply to marriage if you would point out the part where it says that any branch of the federal government gets to regulate marriage – or some category that “marriage” would fall under.
It’s just a fact that marriage is one of those things that has always been regulated by states, and not by the federal government. Look at any marriage license.
.
RealityCheck says:
You can dress…
Name-calling isn’t the same thing as argumentation. Being offensive isn’t the same thing as being persuasive. You’re just making our point for us.
September 11th, 2009 at 7:37 pmElBruce,
While I agree that the federal government should stay out of a whole lot of things they are currently involved in (and should not be involved with marriage either)
People use the “General Welfare” clause of the preamble to get wrapped up into all sorts of things. The same argument about the federal government being authorized to “take care of someones physical health” is the same one people that are religous use to “take care of someones moral health”. They are groups of people who believe they know what you need better than you do, and are requiring you to follow their plans.
September 11th, 2009 at 7:50 pmTundra says:
People use the “General Welfare” clause of the preamble to get wrapped up into all sorts of things.
It is pretty open to interpretation, isn’t it? However, I’d think that of all things, health care falls under “general welfare” much more than just about anything else that the government does.
Hey, wouldn’t it be useful to this debate if there was some kind of official body authorized by the Constitution to interpret the Constitution? That way it would be a settled matter and we wouldn’t have to argue between us about what counts as “general welfare.” Like some kind of court or something… Oh well.
.
Tundra says:
The same argument about the federal government being authorized to “take care of someones physical health” is the same one people that are religous use to “take care of someones moral health”.
Right-wingers are the ones who talk about things like “moral health,” and who try to legislate morality. Left-wingers just try to help people.
September 11th, 2009 at 7:59 pmRight-wingers are the ones who talk about things like “moral health,” and who try to legislate morality. Left-wingers just try to help people.
That’s my point though. They honestly believe that if you are gay you will die and go to eternal hell. They are trying to help people same as you. They are doing what they honestly believe is right. Regardless if it really is or not.
Someone on the outside such as myself, thinks they are getting wrapped up into my business (or someone who is gays business). Both issues have people who think “They are just trying to help”. People who with every fiber of their being feel they are smarter than you and know more than you do, so they will force what is best on everyone else.
September 11th, 2009 at 8:13 pmbelaccifer lacca says:
BTW, if you have other Christian authority that carries the weight of Matthew 19, why don’t you say what it is?
Do you have any reason to believe that any ‘Christian authority’ should carry any weight in our Government?
What do you say to this then?
“…the Government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion;”
Treaty of Tripoli
September 11th, 2009 at 6:48 pm
Thought we’d been through this treaty. Is it still in effect, and why do you insist on taking the phrase out of context? Believe this phrase is from article XI of the treaty. When you finally get around to quoting this phrase in its context, why don’t also post article X?
Perhaps you’ve missed the finer points of Matthew 19 where Christ comments on the Creator’s – Christ term – intent as to marriage. The finer point is that marriage is older than either religion or government. Marriage was instituted by the Creator, according to Christ, not by religion and by the government.
Could it be that marriage is not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution because it was well established without any government endorsement? And exactly what gave marriage any authority without the endorsement of government? Do you have any idea?
A man and a woman are married when they declare they are married – the essence of almost all marriage ceremonies, and natural marriage will continue to carry the mark of the Creator, “…a man and a woman are one flesh…,” according to Christ. This is not a state that can be achieve by to same-same gender people.
You may decide what mark so called SSGM carries.
Homosexuality is immoral, and immorality engenders more immorality.
September 11th, 2009 at 8:23 pmI just heard on “Countdown” that Tim Pawlenty
September 11th, 2009 at 8:27 pmhas “backed down” on the tenth amendment issue today.
I wonder why?
And exactly what gave marriage any authority without the endorsement of government?
Agreed, Why allow marriage to have ANY governmental meaning? There are easily contracts that can be written allowing people to have those “rights”. Why automatically give them to anyone?
September 11th, 2009 at 8:29 pmThen how/why are all those Holy Rollers getting busted for molesting kids??
Looks to me like your brand of medicine doesn’t work.
September 11th, 2009 at 8:30 pmAs to the question Christ is answering in Matthew 19….
It’s almost as if bitblt didn’t want us to read it, or didn’t actually read all of it yourself. Shame on bitblt.
Not really. bit knows what it says, and you’ll find, if a thread ever turns to the spiritual implications of divorce, bit will say pretty much the same things.
Please note that Christ is answering a question about divorce when he tells the questioners what the Creator’s intent is.
bit was repeated many times the conservative Christian saw: “If the heterosexuals were behaving, the homosexuals would simply go back into the closet.”
But placing the blame for the moral status of the country on the behavior of the heterosexual doesn’t in any sense of the world make homosexuality Ok.
Guess someone has finally read it enough that they’re staring to remember what it says.
September 11th, 2009 at 8:32 pmHey, bitbit.
Read the Declaration of Independence.
Unalienable rights.
Your argument is impotent.
September 11th, 2009 at 8:32 pmokie dokie says:
Hey, bitbit.
Read the Declaration of Independence.
Unalienable rights.
Your argument is impotent.
September 11th, 2009 at 8:32 pm
bit doesn’t understand this comment, and bit has read the Declaration.
bit doesn’t believe that this document enumerates any rights, but mostly talks about the need for the U.S. of A. to be free and separate nation from Great Britain.
bit believes that one would find it impossible to find any sympathy or justification or allowance in the Declaration for homosexuality and abortion. In fact one would find in the original draft by T. Jefferson very little on which to endorse slavery, and this T. Jefferson is the same one who drafted legislation in VA proscribing mutilation for the crime of sodomy.
September 11th, 2009 at 8:42 pmThat’s my point though. They honestly believe that if you are gay you will die and go to eternal hell. They are trying to help people same as you. They are doing what they honestly believe is right. Regardless if it really is or not.
bit has expressed his Biblical understanding of this several times.
bit expects that there will be adulterers in heaven, and bit expects that there will be homosexuals in heaven. However, bit expects that these sinners, who are guilty of sexual sins, will have repented.
John 3: 16 says that one who believes Jesus is the Christ the Son of the Living God, will be saved. Later verses address the fate of those who don’t believe. The call is not up to bit.
bit doesn’t get to judge anyone’s heart – their personal relationship with God. bit does get to remark on actions and to express his understanding of scripture.
September 11th, 2009 at 8:48 pm“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal,
September 11th, 2009 at 8:52 pmthat they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights,
that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.”
bit – I’ll be sure to send you an invitation to my gay abortion. Hope you’ll at least see fit to send a gift, if you can’t make it.
September 11th, 2009 at 8:53 pmWhat’s an appropriate gift for a gay abortion, Tom?
Are you registered at Pottery Barn or Home Depo?
September 11th, 2009 at 9:01 pmbit?
Article x?
Okay…
Not sure how that shows that the bible has any standing in the U.S. Government?
September 11th, 2009 at 9:05 pmbitblt
What’s up with the 3rd-person reference to your screen name? Does talking to yourself make you feel like more of a man?
September 11th, 2009 at 9:06 pmokie dokie says:
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal,
that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights,
that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.”
September 11th, 2009 at 8:52 pm
Do you really think this means the Founders were Ok with homosexuality and would have endorsed SSGM?
Might want to note that the Declaration uses the word “Creator.” The Founders would have known that this is a word Christ used to refer to God, as in Matthew 19.
This follows along with Jefferson’s ” The God who gave us Life gave us Liberty…” bit believes you’ll have to make the effort to show that the Founders would have in any sense endorsed homosexuality. You do know that homosexuality was illegal, but rarely enforced, in the U.S. up until 2003.
Lots of conservative people believe that the phrase, “…among these are Life,” means abortion is illegal.
September 11th, 2009 at 9:07 pmtombaker, I think I’ll just get you a gift certificate from Allison Vivas’ Pink Visual Superstore.
September 11th, 2009 at 9:13 pmA gift that keeps on giving, and coming!
bitblt:
Does bitblt hear voices in his head?
Do the voices tell him to come here and post?
September 11th, 2009 at 9:17 pmYou know bitbit, the “founders” were my ancestors.
September 11th, 2009 at 9:18 pmI grew up on their stories.
Sexuality doesn’t have much priorty when you’re dealing with basic survival.
belaccifer lacca says:
bit?
Article x?
Okay…
Art. 10. The money and presents demanded by the Bey of Tripoli, as a full and satisfactory consideration on his part, and on the part of his subjects, for this treaty of perpetual peace and friendship, are acknowledged to have been received by him previous to his signing the same, according to a receipt which is hereto annexed, except such as part as is promised, on the part of the United States, to be delivered and paid by them on the arrival of their Consul in Tripoli; of which part a note is likewise hereto annexed. And no pretense of any periodical tribute of further payments is ever to be made by either party.
Not sure how that shows that the bible has any standing in the U.S. Government?
September 11th, 2009 at 9:05 pm
Not sure how that shows that the bible has any standing in the U.S. Government?
Standing? Not standing, but influence.
The point of X is to note in this treaty the young U.S. was paying tribute to Muslim nations.
As David Barton notes at
http://www.wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesArticles.asp?id=125
In a later letter to Pickering, Eaton reported how pleased one Barbary ruler had been when he received the extortion compensations from America which had been promised him in one of the treaties:
The date on which Eaton records this comment is 1799. The data of the treaty is 1797. Apparently someone interpreted the treaty differently that you.
Reference at the link.
Also at the link the entire Article XI:
The point of this article is to say that Christianity in America is not the same as Christianity in Europe, and this certainly seems to be the case. The President was not head of the church as the King of England was head of the church. Nonetheless it was to the Musselmen’s advantage to treat the U.S. like it was a “Christian Nation.” It still is.
September 11th, 2009 at 9:22 pmWhat the GOP REALLY means … says:
bitblt
What’s up with the 3rd-person reference to your screen name? Does talking to yourself make you feel like more of a man?
September 11th, 2009 at 9:06 pm
It’s a reminder to bit that ideas are being discussed, not people. This is how bit treats it.
September 11th, 2009 at 9:23 pmAnd by the way, bitbit, none of my elders would have ever considered imposing their religious philosophy on others.
September 11th, 2009 at 9:25 pmThey lived their beliefs by example, not through judgement.
okie dokie says:
You know bitbit, the “founders” were my ancestors.
I grew up on their stories.
Sexuality doesn’t have much priorty when you’re dealing with basic survival.
September 11th, 2009 at 9:18 pm
You may be more correct that you know. Even the Bible suggests that homosexuality is more prominent in an affluent society, and the U.S. has certainly become an affluent society since WWII.
September 11th, 2009 at 9:26 pmokie dokie says:
And by the way, bitbit, none of my elders would have ever considered imposing their religious philosophy on others.
They lived their beliefs by example, not through judgement.
September 11th, 2009 at 9:25 pm
If they lived as upright people then they most certainly lived through judgment – living to a standard.
If they had no standard of belief, they could not have lived by judgment.
Judgment and judgmental, while similar, are not the same things.
If you live without a standard then you live without judgment. bit bets you think murder is wrong, ped op hilia is wrong, rape is wrong, and marital unfaithfulness is wrong. bit just adds homosexuality is wrong.
September 11th, 2009 at 9:34 pmbit would also bet that your elders believe all of these were wrong, too.
More from the David Barton link above:
John Adams signed the Treaty of Tripoli, and said the following:
Furthermore, it was Adams who declared:
September 11th, 2009 at 9:36 pm
On a very sad, but related, note; It looks as though another “good Christian” Republican has snapped and committed murder. I almost feel sorry for fools like bitty. Those they worship are so corrupt that I fear their souls will be forfeit. It seems to me that Buy-bull God doesn’t make exceptions for worshiping evil, even when one has been misled.
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/75249.html
September 11th, 2009 at 9:37 pmbit is as good at interpreting treaties as bit is at interpreting scripture… fail.
September 11th, 2009 at 9:39 pmThey lived by example, not by condemnation of others.
September 11th, 2009 at 9:41 pmTrue Christian philosophy.
Their blood runs through every river in this country.
Tolerance.
Not bigotry.
Truth.
Not manipulative deception.
Accept it. Respect it.
Or move on.
Plus, it’s a waste of time to point out the disastrous nature of theocracy to a “True Christian”. They are so utterly committed to a false view of history and reality that they will never admit that theocracy ALWAYS ends badly.
Wanting a nation that’s worth preserving does not mean wanting a theocracy. Wanting the definition of a marriage to remain the definition that has served almost all of mankind for almost all of history is not wanting a theocracy.
The President in his latest health care speech said the following:
Does the President want a theocracy? Did he violate the First Amendment? Why haven’t TPers made his remarks an issue?
September 11th, 2009 at 9:44 pmYou got it wrong again, bitty. Actual real-world data demonstrates that homosexuality is underground in backwards societies while it becomes more open in enlightened societies. In fact, there’s little to suggest that there are outside influences that determine who is a homosexual. The difference is how afraid they are to be open about it.
The sad fact is that, until Ronnie Raygun unleashed the perverse “moral majority” on a complacent nation, we were becoming more enlightened. We’ve been set back thirty years but, reading the writing on the wall, the tide seems to be turning. We, as a nation, are turning from superstition to knowledge. And, when one considers the horrendous failures of those who condemn the best minds, I don’t see the trend reversing any time soon.
September 11th, 2009 at 9:44 pmWell bitty, as long as you bring it up, if President Obama actually tries to impose his religious beliefs on this country I would be delighted to physically drag him out of the White House. However, I’ve seen nothing on his record that suggests he would do such a thing. I have nothing against sincere religious beliefs just so long as they are not imposed. And I haven’t heard President Obama say anything that indicates he conflates personal religious beliefs with morality.
September 11th, 2009 at 9:51 pmokie dokie says:
They lived by example, not by condemnation of others.
True Christian philosophy.
Their blood runs through every river in this country.
Tolerance.
Not bigotry.
Truth.
Not manipulative deception.
Accept it. Respect it.
Or move on.
September 11th, 2009 at 9:41 pm
You confuse judgment with judgmental. Without judgment there is no justice, nothing of value to will our children, and no social progress. Without judgment, when you actually see judgment you think it’s condemnation. bit has never suggested that he is without sin.
Tolerance is not the greatest good, and there is no evidence the Christ tolerated sin.
If you believe true Christian philosophy is tolerating sin, you didn’t get that from the Bible, the source of Christianity.
bit welcomes correction but you’ll have to have some authority, like the Bible.
September 11th, 2009 at 9:52 pmMy ancestors immigrated here, some through indentured servitude, to escape theologist regimes.
September 11th, 2009 at 9:57 pmBy Christian philosophy, I am not referring to fundamentalism, but to the ways of Jesus’ teachings, which were of tolerance and compassion.
Personally, I detest organized religion, but feel I should tolerate others beliefs, as long as is does not inflict harm to anyone.
pete says:
Well bitty, as long as you bring it up, if President Obama actually tries to impose his religious beliefs on this country I would be delighted to physically drag him out of the White House. However, I’ve seen nothing on his record that suggests he would do such a thing. I have nothing against sincere religious beliefs just so long as they are not imposed. And I haven’t heard President Obama say anything that indicates he conflates personal religious beliefs with morality.
September 11th, 2009 at 9:51 pm
You try to judge his heart. bit asked about his actions. bit notes the difference for okie dokie.
And I haven’t heard President Obama say anything that indicates he conflates personal religious beliefs with morality.
If morality doesn’t come from religion, from where does it come?
BTW, two or three weeks ago he called some church leaders to promote his health plan. Do you suppose he was playing the religious, moral angle?
September 11th, 2009 at 9:57 pmbitblt:
Why are so many family values Republican Christian polititions being caught up in sex scandals this summer?
Did you read about the one in California yesterday?
Did you read about the one in Kentucky today who committed murder?
Is btblt ashamed of these Republican Christians?
Do you believe they should all be stoned, because that is what the bible says is the penalty for adultery?
Will you cast the first stone, bitblt?
September 11th, 2009 at 9:59 pmokie dokie says:
My ancestors immigrated here, some through indentured servitude, to escape theologist regimes.
By Christian philosophy, I am not referring to fundamentalism, but to the ways of Jesus’ teachings, which were of tolerance and compassion.
Personally, I detest organized religion, but feel I should tolerate others beliefs, as long as is does not inflict harm to anyone.
September 11th, 2009 at 9:57 pm
If you think Jesus tolerated sin could you explain that to bit?
Jesus did make it clear that attitude, as well as action, was important. As to the compassion, bit doesn’t think Jesus was an enabler, like a person who buys booze for a drunk because that’s that the drunk wants.
September 11th, 2009 at 10:02 pmFYI, bitbit.
September 11th, 2009 at 10:05 pmThe “bible” was not written by Jesus, and was translated into oblivion for political reasons.
The philosophies I hold are generational, and personal.
They are not to be held up for your judgement.
That would not be “Christian” or American.
bitblt: Wanting a nation that’s worth preserving does not mean wanting a theocracy. Wanting the definition of a marriage to remain the definition that has served almost all of mankind for almost all of history is not wanting a theocracy.
Which definition would that be? Perhaps the definition applied to the Hebrews, whether when they were nomadic or when they settled down? Tell us again how many wives Solomon had. Or David’s definition of marriage, maybe you could explain that one. It’s funny that God seemed to thing that definition of “marriage” was just fine.
The problem with people like you, and you’ve repeatedly demonstrated your unwillingness to look to real history and real anthropology, is that you’ve decided that the modern European definition of marriage is universal and eternal.
And you’ll ignore this just as you have every other time you’ve jumped in with your obsessive homophobia.
September 11th, 2009 at 10:07 pmbitblt: If morality doesn’t come from religion, from where does it come?
Why do you keep asking the same stupid, narrow-minded question over and over, blt? Other humans don’t need to be spoon-fed morality from a religious text, blt.
September 11th, 2009 at 10:10 pmReggie says:
bitblt:
Why are so many family values Republican Christian polititions being caught up in sex scandals this summer?
bit has no idea. Assuming it’s as you describe, bit doubts the cause is their Christianity.
Did you read about the one in California yesterday?No.
Did you read about the one in Kentucky today who committed murder?No.
Is btblt ashamed of these Republican Christians?
bit is ashamed of these human beings who commit murder or adultery. bit is also aware that the word Christian has many shades of meaning and is taken lightly by many people. bit is even aware that there are people calling themselves Christian, but they don’t believe in the divinity of Christ. Even Richard Dawkins calls himself a cultural Christian. If you think there’s something about the faith – Christianity – that causes these behaviors, why don’t you point it out?
Do you believe they should all be stoned, because that is what the bible says is the penalty for adultery?
Penalty for adultery, homosexuality, and bestiality was death under the law of Moses. The penalty for adultery applied to both the man and the woman.
But Christians don’t live under the law of Moses.
Will you cast the first stone, bitblt? As a Christian, bit is not required to throw the first or Nth stone.
September 11th, 2009 at 9:59 pm
September 11th, 2009 at 10:11 pmMorality is the default setting for civilized people. It’s in our best interest to behave morally because that’s the only way to benefit from the advantages of society. It’s a legacy that all social animals share.
Religion didn’t create morality. Religions claim it as a “proof” of the divine because the biological imperatives are a bit counter intuitive so, primitive minds try to impose a mysterious source. Selfless acts are attributed to a mythical outside force when it’s just an ancient method to keep the pack, tribe, or society working together for mutual benefit.
September 11th, 2009 at 10:11 pmgummble-bee-itch says:
bitblt: If morality doesn’t come from religion, from where does it come?
Why do you keep asking the same stupid, narrow-minded question over and over, blt? Other humans don’t need to be spoon-fed morality from a religious text, blt.
September 11th, 2009 at 10:10 pm
Why do you keep asking the same stupid, narrow-minded question over and over, blt?
Because he keeps getting responses like this one.
As far as bit is concern, without a supreme being to which everyone is accountable, there is no morality, only someone with a bigger gun. Someone with a bigger gun can force his morality on you, and he won’t be trouble if he’s immoral in his behavior.
September 11th, 2009 at 10:15 pmpete says:
Morality is the default setting for civilized people. It’s in our best interest to behave morally because that’s the only way to benefit from the advantages of society. It’s a legacy that all social animals share.
Religion didn’t create morality. Religions claim it as a “proof” of the divine because the biological imperatives are a bit counter intuitive so, primitive minds try to impose a mysterious source. Selfless acts are attributed to a mythical outside force when it’s just an ancient method to keep the pack, tribe, or society working together for mutual benefit.
September 11th, 2009 at 10:11 pm
Hope that works for you. bit doesn’t find this very satisfying.
If you ever get jury duty, you can probably get dismissed 100% of the time by expressing this attitude to the court.
Without the mystical outside force, you’ll have to use guns, and the court will not want to promote that idea.
September 11th, 2009 at 10:20 pmMorality is the default setting for civilized people. It’s in our best interest to behave morally because that’s the only way to benefit from the advantages of society. It’s a legacy that all social animals share.
Even this remark presuppose one thing: life is better that death.
While bit agrees that life is better that death, he doesn’t believe this is an idea that one can get from science: the theory of Evolution.
bit gets this idea – life is good thing – from the Bible.
September 11th, 2009 at 10:24 pmblt: As far as bit is concern, without a supreme being to which everyone is accountable, there is no morality, only someone with a bigger gun. Someone with a bigger gun can force his morality on you, and he won’t be trouble if he’s immoral in his behavior.
Just because you need a crutch doesn’t mean we all do. Just because you need the threat of God’s wrath to keep you from misbehaving, don’t assume everyone else does.
September 11th, 2009 at 10:24 pmI’m sorry for you, bitbit, if you cannot be accountable for your own actions without being held accountable by a higher power.
September 11th, 2009 at 10:26 pmIt suggests your own personal irresponsiblity, and dependence on the beliefs and judgements of others.
But then, that would explain the third person dialogue.
Does bitblt believe that people who pray in church are hypocrites?
Matthew 6
5 And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.
6 But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.
September 11th, 2009 at 10:28 pmOne of my favorite verses, Reggie.
September 11th, 2009 at 10:33 pmEvery time I drive by ORU (Oral Roberts University) I think about making a stencil to spray paint that on their front door.
It’s not supposed to “satisfy” you, bitty. That’s the job of religion. The whole scam of moral relativism is designed to make ignorant bullies “satisfied” that they are morally superior. Sigh…
Rational adults don’t need to be “satisfied”. Children need to be “satisfied”. Weaklings and cowards need to be “satisfied”. And even slaves need to be “satisfied” or else they would rebel.
That’s one of the great tools of religion. Religion instills a false sense of “satisfaction” to distract one from the knowledge that one is a slave to a myth.
September 11th, 2009 at 10:35 pmbit is convince that some will ignore any threat and continue to misbehave.
Sep03
Wonder how many were “bug chasers.”
September 11th, 2009 at 10:36 pmRational adults don’t need to be “satisfied”.
Perhaps you’d like to give this one a day or two and then clarify it.
You’re not expecting other to want to achiever or to achieve this level or rationalism, are you?
All you said is that, “When others think the way I do he’ll be Ok.”
Paraphrasing scripture: “There is a way that seem right to a man but ends thereof are death.”
September 11th, 2009 at 10:43 pmbitbit, somehow the bigotry, hatred, intolerance, and lack of compassion
September 11th, 2009 at 10:45 pmin the post you just made only defines you as a hypocrite,
not any kind of “Christian”.
That’s one of the great tools of religion. Religion instills a false sense of “satisfaction” to distract one from the knowledge that one is a slave to a myth.
This is a component of a modern myth. It’s better that the old ones because it’s new. It’s better that the old ones because it’s rational and has hints of science.
Rationalism and science are the modern religion, but are they enough to hold a people together.
As someone notes about rational decisions:
September 11th, 2009 at 10:49 pm
Are you drunk, bitty? You are making even less sense than usual.
September 11th, 2009 at 10:57 pmHolding onto anger is like is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else, you are the one that gets burned.
September 11th, 2009 at 11:03 pmokie dokie says:
bitbit, somehow the bigotry, hatred, intolerance, and lack of compassion
in the post you just made only defines you as a hypocrite,
not any kind of “Christian”.
September 11th, 2009 at 10:45 pm
Let bit clear something up for you.
This was posted as a bad thing:
Sep03
Wonder how many were “bug chasers.”
And bit is sorry that any person would get into a state of mind where they would intentionally participate in risky behavior or even want to get AIDS.
OTOH, bit didn’t cause this. He’s simply observing. And the reality is that many men are killing themselves through their sexual behavior.
Does pete put them in the rational adult category? Does a rational adult participate in sexual behavior that is deadly?
bit has compassion. Here it is: men should stop having sex with men. It will kill you.
Have you been that compassionate on this thread, okie dokie?
September 11th, 2009 at 11:04 pmbitblt:
You avoided answering the question I asked in comment 130.
A simple yes or no will suffice, because you seem too intoxicated to post anything intelligible this evening.
September 11th, 2009 at 11:06 pmThat was a quote from Buddha, @11:03pm
Don’t want to plagiarize Buddha….Khrist!
September 11th, 2009 at 11:08 pmAcorn says:
Given that you are an ignorant brainwashed piece of garbage and too stupid to know anything but what Rush tells you to think. Given that you are a stupid punkass troll no one cares what you think. Just STFU till you aquire some critical thinking skills
September 11th, 2009 at 11:10 pmBit you are an ignorant hateful troll. That hateful bile that you spew is disgusting. Any decent human being would be ashamed that you are the same species we are
September 11th, 2009 at 11:12 pmJust because you need a crutch doesn’t mean we all do. Just because you need the threat of God’s wrath to keep you from misbehaving, don’t assume everyone else does.
bit is convince that some will ignore any threat and continue to misbehave.
So religion is no real help at all, got it.
September 11th, 2009 at 11:14 pmDoes bitblt believe that people who pray in church are hypocrites?
No.
Church is Christian worship. The worship in the verses you quote was Jewish worship though the principle of “don’t do it for show” would likely still apply.
There are other examples in NT about Christians praying together, apparently in public worship.
Hypocrisy is not under the exclusive purview of Christians though it is the case that there’s not much reason to expect anything out of atheists. Hypocrisy seems to be a charge leveled at those from whom one can reasonably well expect something.
When the word hypocrisy comes up on TP, bit just rolls his eyes and yawns. It doesn’t take much talent or forethought or proof to use this word.
If any TPer want to call a Christian who commits adultery a hypocrite, bit’s Ok with this. Commenting on the acts of another is not the same as knowing his heart. Knowing hearts is God’s job.
September 11th, 2009 at 11:17 pmbitbit, my intention is to be mindful and compassionate in all of my choices, but I will not tolerate intolerance.
September 11th, 2009 at 11:20 pmThere are many kinds of irresponsible, even dangerous, sexual behaviors. That would include most casual sex whether it’s a homosexual union or not. That being said, a rational adult is hardly immune to mistakes in judgment.
There are many places where condoms are free, no questions asked. Most of those places have lower rates of VD and teen pregnancy and single parents. Yet, “good Christians” fight this in their efforts to control others even though most of those condoms are unused or turned into water balloons.
Does a rational human deny another the means to protect their sexual health? I say no.
“Want to get AIDS” is one of the most ridiculous statements I’ve ever read on this forum. It’s just sick.
September 11th, 2009 at 11:20 pmBitty. You are so painfully ignorant and biased that it’s hard to even play with you for amusement. Do you have any idea how many non Christian churches there are in the world or even the good ol’ U.S.A.?
That’s why we can’t really communicate. You just can’t get away from your narrow world-view long enough to interact with the vast majority of humanity.
September 11th, 2009 at 11:25 pmSo religion is no real help at all, got it.
Most illegal coming from the south are nominally Catholic. Some were christen as infants, but not all. Some can read, many can’t. Some know their birthdates, but not all.
Nominally a Christian means in name only.
You should feel free to decide who is a nominally a Christian and who is a Christian. bit does.
bit is sorry that not everyone who takes the name of Christ will always bring honor to that name. Some really don’t believe in Christ. Others, many others, stumble. Christians who do believe in Christ don’t claim to be perfect, just forgiven, and when they stumble, they get up and go again.
September 11th, 2009 at 11:25 pmpete says:
.
.
.
“Want to get AIDS” is one of the most ridiculous statements I’ve ever read on this forum. It’s just sick.
September 11th, 2009 at 11:20 pm
http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/5939950/bug_chasers
In Search of Death
Gregory A. FreemanPosted Jan 23, 2003 12:00 AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bugchasing
If you google this you’ll get many, many responses.
It’s just sick.
Perhaps this is some sort of hoax. bit has not idea. He’s just an observer.
September 11th, 2009 at 11:34 pmblt: You should feel free to decide who is a nominally a Christian and who is a Christian. bit does.
So your version of Christ allows you to sit in judgment of others? Interesting. He must be different than the Christ in the Gospels.
September 11th, 2009 at 11:37 pmReggie gets the feeling that bitblt is a closeted homosexual who is in denial.
September 11th, 2009 at 11:37 pmCome out of the closet bit, Jesus will love you even more when you acceptthat God created you that way.
Why fight nature?
It looks like bitty wants to restrict “Christianity” to literate, native, English-speakers. I suspect he thinks anyone outside his own church is less “Christian” than himself.
C’mon bitty. Tell us how those Spanish speaking Mary worshipers are going to Hell.
September 11th, 2009 at 11:37 pmI like your Christ, I do not like your Christians.
Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.
Mohandas Gandhi
September 11th, 2009 at 11:39 pmHow about the generations of devout Orthodox Christians who were unable, or unwilling, to flee the Soviet Union? Are they all in Hell?
September 11th, 2009 at 11:40 pmbitbit, note my post at 9:41
Perhaps it is time for you to move on.
May I suggest Iran.
It is basically a OCD fundamentalist theocracy, completely homosexually intolerant society.
In fact, proven homosexuals can actually be executed there.
Really cuts down on any threat of aids.
September 11th, 2009 at 11:47 pmgummble-bee-itch says:
blt: You should feel free to decide who is a nominally a Christian and who is a Christian. bit does.
So your version of Christ allows you to sit in judgment of others? Interesting. He must be different than the Christ in the Gospels.
September 11th, 2009 at 11:37 pm
Has bit just been told that he can’t use the word hypocrite?
God judges another’s heart, not bit.
bit can comment on whether or not an action is consist with the declaration of faith. Isn’t that what TPers do when they call someone a hypocrite?
bit doesn’t believe it is consistent with Christianity for a Christian to not believe in the divinity of Christ.
bit doesn’t believe it is consistent with Christianity for a Christian to be unfaithful to their spouse.
bit doesn’t believe it is consistent with Christianity for a Christian to behave sexually irresponsibility.
The Christ in the Gospels often called people on their behavior.
Other parts of the NT instruct Christian to reprove and rebuke. According to John 3:16 if you’re not a Christian, your behavior is irrelevant to your salvation – you have none. OTOH, one’s behavior, if a non-Christians, has consequences which are likely detrimental to themselves and everyone around them.
September 11th, 2009 at 11:52 pmHi bit
September 11th, 2009 at 11:57 pmDid you ever see that Star Trek where if you got zapped by this thing you got turned into a cube of some sort of crystalline solid?
Bit you are garbage. A hateful ignorant pile of garbage
September 11th, 2009 at 11:57 pmmybatterybase
September 11th, 2009 at 11:59 pmMay I introduce you to Andrew whatever his name….
okie dokie says:
bitbit, my intention is to be mindful and compassionate in all of my choices, but I will not tolerate intolerance.
September 11th, 2009 at 11:20 pm
Well. bit is always impressed with the number of ways one can say, “I don’t believe in anything.”
September 12th, 2009 at 12:00 amBit you are garbage. A hateful ignorant pile of garbage
So. Poster knows garbage. bit thought this poster only knew morons.
September 12th, 2009 at 12:01 amHow about Mormons, bitty? Are they all going to Hell? How about Irish Catholics? What about Lutherans? The effing Lutherans, bitty?
September 12th, 2009 at 12:02 ambitblt says:
I am always astonished at just how stupid you are. Your post was so blazingly ignorant its obliviousness is appalling. He obviously DOES believe in something. He believe in tolerance. Tolerance is supposed to be a Christian virtue. You are stupid. You are so stupid I am always suprised at how you cant understand ANYTHING AT ALL.
September 12th, 2009 at 12:03 amThen one of the crystalline solid cubes got crushed in the palm of the dudes hand….
September 12th, 2009 at 12:04 amWell, well, well. Bitty finally got something, almost, right.
Rational humans are not ruled by Belief, they are guided by knowledge. Rational humans study the world and it’s history, learn from their studies, and proceed accordingly.
I believe many things but, I Believe nothing.
September 12th, 2009 at 12:07 ampete says:
How about Mormons, bitty? Are they all going to Hell? How about Irish Catholics? What about Lutherans? The effing Lutherans, bitty?
September 12th, 2009 at 12:02 am
You should be able to figure this out for you self pete. John 3: 16 makes it rather clear: there are those who believe in Christ and there are those who don’t.
September 12th, 2009 at 12:10 amI’m not so sure, EugeneDebs. Piles of garbage are very real. Bitty is just a parody, an abstract sketch, of a “real” Christian.
September 12th, 2009 at 12:11 amSo bit… Have you seen the one I mean or not? Come on bit, do me a solid here…
September 12th, 2009 at 12:12 amblt: The Christ in the Gospels often called people on their behavior.
He was The Christ. You are not. Mighty presumptuous of you.
September 12th, 2009 at 12:13 amcalled people on their behavior.
—–
ethology is cool….
September 12th, 2009 at 12:14 amTolerance is supposed to be a Christian virtue.
Are you trying to say this:
Tolerance is a Christian virtue.
Either way you need some authority for this statement.
Otherwise, it’s simply your opinion, and bit doesn’t give much weight to opinion of one who specializes in garbage and morons.
bit will consider any authority you offer, but he would prefer Biblical authority.
To bit’s understanding there is nothing in the NT to suggest that Christ was Ok – tolerated – sin.
September 12th, 2009 at 12:15 amSee, bitty? You just admitted you are a slave.
bitty says:
bit will consider any authority you offer, but he would prefer Biblical authority.
Free, sane, people are their own authority. Slaves submit to authority.
September 12th, 2009 at 12:19 amWhich definition would that be? Perhaps the definition applied to the Hebrews, whether when they were nomadic or when they settled down? Tell us again how many wives Solomon had. Or David’s definition of marriage, maybe you could explain that one. It’s funny that God seemed to thing that definition of “marriage” was just fine.
The Bible records that first polygamist in the Bible was also a murder.
There is only one condition in the OT where a man could have more than one wife, and none of the names you reference qualified.
The Bible says Solomon’s many wives drew him away from God. Not a good think.
King David suffered grievously for his sexual sins, and his family suffered as well. When he died he had only one wife.
Other critically important Old Testament characters only had one wife. These includes Noah and Moses.
Christ says in Matthew 19 that the Creator’s intent was one man and one woman in a marriage.
Polygamy is not mentioned in the NT.
September 12th, 2009 at 12:23 amSo you see bit, I sort of think the crystalline solid cube deal is like just another case of people being turned into salts in ways that make absolutely no sense.
Your thoughts?…
September 12th, 2009 at 12:23 amI don’t know what perversion of the bible you’re quoting, bitbit, but I don’t remember the word “irrelevant” anywhere in it.
September 12th, 2009 at 12:35 amDoes your charge nurse know you’re out of your room?
I gave you an example in every one of my post of my personal beliefs, and you seem to find pleasure in dismissing and invalidating them.
That, coupled with your reference to yourself in the third person, suggests a narcissistic personality disorder.
Again, Iran would be quite the place for you. Just pickup a new language and add a couple of prophets. You don’t even have to read the bible there, the Mullahs will translate it for you.
How about Jesus? Did he or did he NOT stop the stoning of the adulteress? Did he or did he not say JUDGE NOT LEST YE BE JUDGED by the same measure? Did he or did he NOT say turn the other cheeck. In what WAY are these NOT tolerance? As for sin. That is YOUR interpretation. I do not find it so clear. Jesus never said a WORD about homosexuality and unless you make your wife leave the house during menstruation never eat shellfish, touch the skin of a pig. Unless you are willing to stone those who plant two different crops next to each other, sew with two kinds of thread, and keep the Sabbath in the ways Leviticus says to them spare me Leviticus. It shows you to be a hypocrite that only wants to take what you want from the bible and leave the rest. Also Jesus taught about reincarnation and I am betting that you dont believe that. So what it is really is you are a hateful bigot who searches for excuses to be an ignorant hateful bigot.
How about a scholars interpretaion of St Thomas Aquinas? St Thomas being an aknowledged expert on natural or religious law.
“The natural law is a participation in us of the eternal law: while human law falls short of the eternal law.” (ST I-II q. 96, a. 2, ad 3) Because the scope of human law is narrower than that of natural law, it cannot regulate every human action.
Human law is not for the already virtuous, but rather for those still needing formation in virtue. This purpose contains within itself the seeds for toleration. Due to the fact that most people are still struggling to be virtuous, human laws should not be so stringent as to discourage persons on the road to virtue. Thomas suggests that human law should guide citizens, without overwhelming them:
YOUR opinion isnt the end all of this debate
September 12th, 2009 at 12:37 amHeck! EugeneDebs. Ol’ bitty isn’t even the start of all this debate. He doesn’t debate, he obeys. Poor slave.
September 12th, 2009 at 12:53 amOh yeah. Ol’ bitty doesn’t allow himself opinions. They might conflict with his Beliefs. We can’t have that.
September 12th, 2009 at 1:05 amAre we still using bible quotes to use in support of this bill? So very sad. First of all, nobody even talks about how offensive the name DEFENSE AGAINST MARRIAGE ACT is. Defense against marraige… that means they`re saying their protecting marraige from gay people. Like we`re monsters or evil or something. Every time I hear that title I get so angry. It`s about time we BANISH this bill back to those a-hole,holier than thou right wingers.
September 12th, 2009 at 1:18 amI`m sorry it`s DEFENSE OF MARRIAGE ACT. Still a very STUPID bill. REPEAL!
September 12th, 2009 at 1:35 amI’m not gay or bisexual but I’m an unqualified supporter of gay rights and I can identify the moment I arrived at that position.
I was pretty homophobic as a young man. Mostly it was just lack of experience. Then a childhood friend came to work with me. In the years that we had lost track of each other she had been married, had two children, got divorced, realized she is gay, and entered a committed relationship with another woman with three kids. The kids call their respective mothers “Mom Too”. (How cute is that?)
Anyway, we had a slow day at work and got to talking and she related a story. She had been out of town when her daughter suffered an appendicitis. “Mom Too” took the child to the emergency room and, because she was a gay partner, was unable to approve treatment. The poor girl spent 6 hours in agony, at risk of dying, while the hospital tried to track down someone who was “morally suitable”. It’s one of the most horribly cruel stories I’ve ever heard and my whole outlook changed forever.
This poor child suffered, at risk of her life, because silly frightened people are freaked out by those who are “different”. Parental rights alone are all the reason I need. When parental rights are denied to rational, competent, loving people? It’s just plain wrong.
Since then I’ve met many more homosexual people and many of them have children. Happy, healthy children.
And most of them have limited parental rights because of our Puritan heritage and the recent surge of religious nuts. And the laws written by those nuts PUT CHILDREN IN DANGER! That’s wrong and I will fight to change it.
September 12th, 2009 at 1:51 amfreeyourmind22 says:
I`m sorry it`s DEFENSE OF MARRIAGE ACT. Still a very STUPID bill. REPEAL!
I think your Freudian slip was more accurate. The DOMA is against marriage, love, families, and simple human decency.
September 12th, 2009 at 1:58 amTundra says:
Someone on the outside such as myself, thinks they are getting wrapped up into my business (or someone who is gays business). Both issues have people who think “They are just trying to help”. People who with every fiber of their being feel they are smarter than you and know more than you do, so they will force what is best on everyone else.
No, there’s a big difference between being offered medical care and being told you can’t get married because somebody else’s God disapproves. Big difference. You’re not “on the outside” at all.
.
bitblt says:
Could it be that marriage is not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution because it was well established without any government endorsement?
Could it be that you’re phrasing things in the form of a question to be disingenuous?
As marriage is not metioned in the U.S. Constitution, it is a state or personal issue under the 10th Amendment. Thanks for clearing that up.
.
bitblt says:
Not really. bit knows what it says, and you’ll find, if a thread ever turns to the spiritual implications of divorce, bit will say pretty much the same things.
We’re not talking about spiritual implications at this website. We’re talking about legal rights. Either divorce should be illegal, or gay marriage should be legal. You can’t have it both ways.
.
bitblt says:
bit doesn’t understand this comment, and bit has read the Declaration.
bit doesn’t believe that this document enumerates any rights, but mostly talks about the need for the U.S. of A. to be free and separate nation from Great Britain.
Bold added. Interesting claim. Let’s check:
Well, that’s at least four right there. Ever read the thing? Yeah, didn’t think so, wingnut.
.
bitblt says:
Wanting the definition of a marriage to remain the definition that has served almost all of mankind for almost all of history is not wanting a theocracy.
That would be the definition prior to King Henry VIII’s attempt to redefine it to include divorce, right? That would be the definition that exlude slaves, right? The one that doesn’t allow people who are of different religious denominations to marry each other, right? The one that doesn’t allow people who are of different races to marry each other, right? I mean, if we’re just going by total number of years in human history, we have to throw out all of the philosophical advances of the last few centuries.
.
bitblt says:
Does the President want a theocracy?
Every President since (I think) Reagan has ended their joint session and state of the union speeches with that phrase. It’s their prerogative to do so, and is in no way legally binding on any one.
.
bitblt says:
If you think Jesus tolerated sin could you explain that to bit?
You should try reading the Bible some time.
What else would you call breaking bread with someone and appealing to mercy, but tolerance? This is precisely the point that the Pharisees challenged Jesus on – that he should be intolerant of these people. However, he clearly tolerated them. He didn’t claim to condone their behavior, but nor did he try to shame them or subject them to any form of harm or deprivation. Anti-gay-marriage laws clearly take the Pharisee approach.
.
bitblt says:
As to the compassion, bit doesn’t think Jesus was an enabler, like a person who buys booze for a drunk because that’s that the drunk wants.
HE WAS DRINKING WITH THEM!
Imbecile.
.
bitblt says:
As far as bit is concern, without a supreme being to which everyone is accountable, there is no morality, only someone with a bigger gun. Someone with a bigger gun can force his morality on you, and he won’t be trouble if he’s immoral in his behavior.
In other words, you’re at heart a proponent of amorality. Might makes right. You are an evil person masquerading as a Christian. Figures.
.
bitblt says:
The Bible says Solomon’s many wives drew him away from God. Not a good think.
King David suffered grievously for his sexual sins, and his family suffered as well. When he died he had only one wife.
Specifically it says that some of Solomon’s wives worshipped other gods, reducing his own devotion to God. But it doesn’t say that having multiple wives is bad, or that that is a necessary or even likely consequence thereof.
David didn’t “suffer grievously” for having multiple wives. Not at all. He suffered for trying to steal someone else’s wife. It still doesn’t say that having multiple wives is bad.
Polygamy is clearly mandated by the word of God. You have completely failed to demonstrate the contrary.
September 12th, 2009 at 2:27 amPolygamy is clearly mandated by the word of God. You have completely failed to demonstrate the contrary.
You failed to point out where in the Bible polygamy is mandated and how that mandate applies to the Kings of Israel.
Other scriptures are very specific about the behavior of Kings.
Deuteronomy 17:
It appears to bit that the Kings ignored this command.
Nonetheless, bit looks forward to seeing the scripture reference to the mandate that Kings take multiple wives.
=============================================================
BTW, in the book of John where Christ stopped the stoning of the woman caught in the act of adultery, Christ told her to stop sinning.
It’s bit opinion in this account that Christ stopped the stoning because of an injustice. Mosaic law directs that both the man and the woman are to be stoned for adultery. The account in John say the woman was caught in the act. Where is the man? Would it not be an injustice to stone one but not the other?
Readers of John should note that the Bible doesn’t say that Jesus saved everyone from stoning for the sin of adultery.
==============================================================
BTW, Christ is quoted in Matthew about sexual purity. Christ says that adultery is about attitude as well as action when He says that a man shouldn’t look at a woman to lust after her. If a man lusts after a woman, he commits adultery, according to Jesus in Matthew 5.
Christ is also rather plain about the source of sin when He remarks in Matthew 15
bit suspects this use of fornication is the big fornication – all sexual sins not specifically listed which, in this case, would include homosexuality as well as others too numerous to list.
September 12th, 2009 at 11:15 amOne of bit’s constant themes is what is going to continue to make the nation worth preserving? Are there those who see “tolerance and diversity” as the great glue of social cohesion “Tolerance and diversity” will cause oneness. Believe that motto on the money, “From many, one,” presupposes as cause. What is the cause to which are citizens will adhere?
Earlier this year the President announced to the world that the U.S. is not a Christian nation, contrary to the view of 62% of the population in a poll immediately after this pronouncement, but the U.S., according to the President, is a nation of shared values. The President conveniently forgot to say exactly what those values are.
bit doesn’t think SSGM will ever be a shared value in the U.S.
Pat Buchahan’s recent opinion summarizes the divisions – a la tolerance and diversity – that plague the nation.
Is America coming apart?
September 12th, 2009 at 11:39 am
American freedom depends on Christianity.
September 12th, 2009 at 11:40 amYou’re damn right that Buchahan sees us as a divided nation and he works very hard to keep us that way. He’s a well documented bigot and hate monger. And that paragraph you highlighted sounds like he’s channeling Hitler.
Thankfully our nation, from the moment it was born, has never resembled Mr. Buchahan’s/Hitler’s ideal. In fact, the only place such nations exist is in the fantasies of genocidal monsters. The very word “freedom” is a perversion comming from such people.
September 12th, 2009 at 12:54 pmbitblt says:
American freedom depends on Christianity.
American freedom depends on Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, every otherism never becoming the state religion.
belac believes this is not only his constant theme but the constant theme of countless other Americans all through history.
September 12th, 2009 at 1:12 pmAbout flippin’ time.
My marriage/love life is nobody’s business but mine and my husband’s.
September 12th, 2009 at 2:01 pmbitblt says:
Other scriptures are very specific about the behavior of Kings.
Deuteronomy 17:
So we have to have a king? Democracy is against God?
.
bitblt says:
bit suspects this use of fornication is the big fornication – all sexual sins not specifically listed which, in this case, would include homosexuality as well as others too numerous to list.
Your “suspicion” is not theology.
.
bitblt says:
Believe that motto on the money, “From many, one,” presupposes as cause. What is the cause to which are citizens will adhere?
Democracy. Liberty. Human and civil rights. You know, stuff like that.
.
bitblt says:
Earlier this year the President announced to the world that the U.S. is not a Christian nation…
It isn’t. I’ve read the Constitution and everything.
.
bitblt says:
Pat Buchahan’s recent opinion summarizes the divisions – a la tolerance and diversity – that plague the nation.
Pat Buchanan’s recent opinion also holds that Hitler was a man of peace. The opinions of a Nazi apologist regarding what “plagues the nation” is of less than no value.
.
bitblt says:
American freedom depends on Christianity.
That’s exactly the opposite of true.
September 13th, 2009 at 3:39 ambitblt says:
Alright, I’ll bite…
The very concept of America, beginning with the founding fathers, is that we could forge a nation not on those things but rather on a shared philosophy, one laid out in the Declaration of Independence and in the Constitution. That all men are created equal. That we should select our leaders, rather than letting them select themselves. That everyone should be free to believe whatever they want. That government should serve the people, rather than vice versa. That the head of state should be a civilian rather than hold military rank. That the legislature, executive, and judicial systems should all be both independent of one another and answerable to each other. Stuff like that.
But in any case, American culture has always been a rich hybrid of whatever was already here with whatever recently arrived. It always will be. Yet at every step, we remain plagued by xenophobes who demand that everyone think, act and look exactly like they do. They have never prevailed, nor have they ever strengthened us one bit.
The notion that nations should be based on common ancestry/faith/culture/language was perhaps the central thesis of Nazi Germany – that “pure Aryan” culture should be mandated; that all competing cultural influences, such as Judaism, and Gypsies, must necessarily be driven out to strengthen the German nation; that neighboring states with German-speaking population areas must be invaded and annexed so all of the Germans can be in one country. Here’s a link. Here’s another.
Again, Buchanan really lets his swastika show on this one; Hitler couldn’t have said it better himself, although he often tried. It’s unfortunate that you would let yourself be sucked into such a premise.
September 13th, 2009 at 4:02 amThe only time you ever hear any Republican politician talk about “states rights” is when they want to depive a segment of the population of the rights that the majority enjoys.
When the right-whiners want to enshrine “special rights” for their adherents, they call it “states rights”. You never heard any right-whiners calling for “states rights” when civil rights were being poushed, although if they thought they could have gotten away with it, they’d have done so. It would have meant that most southern states would still have laws against inter-racial couples from getting married.
Marriage equality is an American value that will come eventually. The only limiting factor will be the number of right-whiners that push for “specail rights” to descriminate against the minority for one pourpose only: they hate true American values.
September 13th, 2009 at 3:46 pmDavid Barton found a good one from TJefferson:
http://www.wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesArticles.asp?id=23909#R13
Why was Jefferson a faithful attendant at the Sunday church at the Capitol? He once explained to a friend while they were walking to church together:
President Jefferson even closed presidential documents with “In the year of our Lord Christ” (see below).
23. Hutson, Religion, p. 96, quoting from a handwritten history in possession of the Library of Congress, “Washington Parish, Washington City,” by Rev. Ethan Allen. (Return)
September 13th, 2009 at 5:49 pmRe: dbadass @ 48:
They should turn the 2 of us loose in a kitchen sometime with an unlimited budget and see what happens. <]:-)
September 14th, 2009 at 1:23 amTundra @55
No, based on those tables, the tax due when considering equitable incomes for each person are the same.
Here’s how it’s calculated, starting with the upper limit of the married figure:
15% on the income between $16,700 and $67,900; plus $1,670.00
The upper limit is taxed as follows:
67,900-16,700=51,200
51,200*15%=7,680
7,680+1,670=9,350.
Single:
25% on the income between $33,950 and $82,250; plus $4,675
Half of the married income is $33,950, the lower limit of the tax bracket. Because it’s the lower limit, the tax is only the amount pre-calculated for the previous brackets (the part that says “plus $XXXX), so that tax is $4,675 per individual. Double that and you get $9,350.
The amounts due in taxes are identical for two individuals filing separately or one married couple filing jointly. There is no marriage benefit, you just didn’t do the math correctly.
September 14th, 2009 at 9:18 amLet us never forget that it was Thomas Jefferson who introduced the idea of “separation of church and state”.
“Believing… that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their Legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between Church and State.” –Thomas Jefferson to Danbury Baptists, 1802. ME 16:281
http://etext.virginia.edu/jefferson/quotations/jeff1650.htm
He had quite a bit to say about religion and government. one of his more interesting quotes:
“The declaration that religious faith shall be unpunished does not give immunity to criminal acts dictated by religious error.” –Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1788. ME 7:98
September 14th, 2009 at 10:16 amI like this one too:
“If anything pass in a religious meeting seditiously and contrary to the public peace, let it be punished in the same manner and no otherwise than as if it had happened in a fair or market.” –Thomas Jefferson: Notes on Religion, 1776. Papers 1:548
Threatening the life of the President qualifies under Jeffersons statement. Let’s charge the evil-doer Rev. Steven Anderson under criminal court, as he so justly deserves!
September 14th, 2009 at 10:20 amI think this one is most appropriate to this current discussion:
“Our civil rights have no dependence upon our religious opinions more than our opinions in physics or geometry.” –Thomas Jefferson: Statute for Religious Freedom, 1779. ME 2:301, Papers 2:545
September 14th, 2009 at 10:33 amThank you for your sharing.!
September 16th, 2009 at 10:50 pmThe future is less clear for other legislation on which gay activists are encouraging action estetik cerrahi.
September 17th, 2009 at 7:44 am