Political Junky
Gold Member
- May 27, 2009
- 25,793
- 3,990
- 280
Just voted on. Link not available yet.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Just voted on. Link not available yet.
Just voted on. Link not available yet.
Curious to see the religous exemption, and wondering what the first lawsuit challenging said exception will look like.
Just voted on. Link not available yet.
Curious to see the religous exemption, and wondering what the first lawsuit challenging said exception will look like.
I'm guessing it means a house of worship (church) would not be forced to do a cermemony if their religious beliefs do not fit that of the law.
Perfectly reasonable as well as Constituitional, and possibly a model for other states to follow if the ACLU can keep its panties out of its ass crack.
Just voted on. Link not available yet.
Curious to see the religous exemption, and wondering what the first lawsuit challenging said exception will look like.
Just voted on. Link not available yet.
Something there is about conservatives that cannot stand empathy for others.
I love it.
Just voted on. Link not available yet.
Curious to see the religous exemption, and wondering what the first lawsuit challenging said exception will look like.
How is this not political when it was passed by the State Legislature? Guess the title should have been "Republican NY State Senate Passes Gay Marriage" for it not to get moved. (and so quickly too)
Ah, reminds me of my old board...{nostalgic sigh}
Just voted on. Link not available yet.
Curious to see the religous exemption, and wondering what the first lawsuit challenging said exception will look like.
That is just it, religion has nothing to do with gays getting married. Who cares if they will be exempt or not.
Curious to see the religous exemption, and wondering what the first lawsuit challenging said exception will look like.
I'm guessing it means a house of worship (church) would not be forced to do a cermemony if their religious beliefs do not fit that of the law.
Perfectly reasonable as well as Constituitional, and possibly a model for other states to follow if the ACLU can keep its panties out of its ass crack.
Your last sentance is the key. As we all know the ACLU has made a living out of having panties in said asscrack.
Just voted on. Link not available yet.
Curious to see the religous exemption, and wondering what the first lawsuit challenging said exception will look like.
There ought not be a religious exemption; when religious officials take on the role of civil servants, they ought to be required to accept the responsibilities of that job, however,
the exemption is a worthwhile concession to achieve the greater good.
I'm guessing it means a house of worship (church) would not be forced to do a cermemony if their religious beliefs do not fit that of the law.
Perfectly reasonable as well as Constituitional, and possibly a model for other states to follow if the ACLU can keep its panties out of its ass crack.
Your last sentance is the key. As we all know the ACLU has made a living out of having panties in said asscrack.
Yeah they defended Rush the pill popper for his doctor shopping.
Just voted on. Link not available yet.
Curious to see the religous exemption, and wondering what the first lawsuit challenging said exception will look like.
There ought not be a religious exemption; when religious officials take on the role of civil servants, they ought to be required to accept the responsibilities of that job, however,
the exemption is a worthwhile concession to achieve the greater good.