Judge Jackson: "Well, Senator. That is . . . the nature of a right." Great words. I wish she actually believed it.

[RoshawnMarkwees]

A kid is going to be better off adopted by two same-sex parents than bouncing around in the foster system, which is so riddled with abuse that it should be considered an ongoing human trafficking racket, or in some third world country.

Who said anything advocating for feral children? I’m talking about intentionally creating a non-mom-and-dad family situation. You’re using anomalies as an excuse for that.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Who said anything advocating for feral children? I’m talking about intentionally creating a non-mom-and-dad family situation. You’re using anomalies as an excuse for that.

You said that as if the alternative to an adoption by a same-sex couple is always a mom-dad adoption. I’m saying that for many children, the alternative is no adoption at all so they remain in a situation much worse than having two parents who are eager to take care of them and happen to be same-sex.

How would you handle it if a couple stated in their will that they wanted a gay couple to adopt their children if they died in a car accident? would you oppose their parental right to have that happen?

 

[Curried Goats]

Repubs need to use the Prog handbook now. they have given the Progs near everything they wanted over the decades with the fraud RINOS cushioning their decisions. And since there are many citizens who do not want to go to war, they are restrained right now. But the D.C. undead are an addicted species getting their way to play their games of life and death and hide the problems the caused.

Restrained=cucked

 

[struth]

The exchange was over same-sex marriage:

Senator Cornyn: . . . no state can pass a law, that conflicts with the Supreme Court edict, particularly in an area where people have sincerely held religious beliefs, doesn't that necessarily create a conflict between what people may believe as a matter of their religious doctrine or faith, and what the federal government says is the law of the land?

Judge Jackson: Well, Senator. That is . . . the nature of a right. That when there is a right . . . it means that there are limitations on regulation, even if . . . uh, people are regulating pursuant to their sincerely held religious beliefs.

Spot on. That is exactly the nature of a right, whether enumerated or not. If I have a right to bear arms, that right is not trumped by your religious belief that they have some kind of bad "mojo" that will cause me to kill an innocent person. If I have a right to free speech, it does not cease to exist if you say that your religion is offended by what I say.

Etc.

Would that any statist of any stripe ever actually believed that. Imagine the left, stripped of their ability to take away rights based on the religions of socialism, environmentalism, and statism. Imagine the right, unable to take away rights based on Protestantism and Catholicism.

The sad truth is that when she is on the Supreme Court, Judge Jackson will base all of her votes on her religious beliefs that stem from the religion of American Liberalism. Just as all four dissenting opinions in the case of Obergefell v. Hodges (that struck down laws against same-sex marriage) were based on Christianity, more or less openly.

We were founded as a nation in which people could mind their own business without being bothered by other people who make everyone's business their business. We've gotten so far away from that, that I'm not seeing a path back.

That was hard to watch....the Senator is an idiot

 

[bodecea]

Legal homo marriage mandates acquiescence. That’s not a right.

Legal hetero marriage mandates acquiescence. That's not a right.

However, if the government provides benefits via legal marriage licenses to one group of con-senting adults, they must also provide for the other group of con-senting adults. Check the 14th Amendment....equal treatment under the law IS a right.

 

[bodecea]

That was hard to watch....the Senator is an idiot

That was known beforehand.

 

[August West]

I am guessing you missed the part where slavery was legal.

The Bible instructs the slaves to obey their masters.

 

[LilOlLady]

The exchange was over same-sex marriage:

Senator Cornyn: . . . no state can pass a law, that conflicts with the Supreme Court edict, particularly in an area where people have sincerely held religious beliefs, doesn't that necessarily create a conflict between what people may believe as a matter of their religious doctrine or faith, and what the federal government says is the law of the land?

Judge Jackson: Well, Senator. That is . . . the nature of a right. That when there is a right . . . it means that there are limitations on regulation, even if . . . uh, people are regulating pursuant to their sincerely held religious beliefs.

Spot on. That is exactly the nature of a right, whether enumerated or not. If I have a right to bear arms, that right is not trumped by your religious belief that they have some kind of bad "mojo" that will cause me to kill an innocent person. If I have a right to free speech, it does not cease to exist if you say that your religion is offended by what I say.

Etc.

Would that any statist of any stripe ever actually believed that. Imagine the left, stripped of their ability to take away rights based on the religions of socialism, environmentalism, and statism. Imagine the right, unable to take away rights based on Protestantism and Catholicism.

The sad truth is that when she is on the Supreme Court, Judge Jackson will base all of her votes on her religious beliefs that stem from the religion of American Liberalism. Just as all four dissenting opinions in the case of Obergefell v. Hodges (that struck down laws against same-sex marriage) were based on Christianity, more or less openly.

We were founded as a nation in which people could mind their own business without being bothered by other people who make everyone's business their business. We've gotten so far away from that, that I'm not seeing a path back.

LMFOAO> The only thing you care to know about this woman is that she is BLACK> Your Founding Fathers' actions were all based on white anglo Christian religion that excused slavery and genocide of native Americans. Unfortunately, Jackson base her judgmental actions on the constitution that long needed to be amended to include all Americans and not just white Anglo Americans. And you and the radical right cannot get into this blacks woman's head and it scares the hell out of you all.

 

[LilOlLady]

The Bible instructs the slaves to obey their masters.

The Christian bible condones slavery and that is the reason I am not a Christian. The Christian God is not my god.

 

[LilOlLady]

Homos can’t procreate, heteros can and that’s why legal marriage was invented.
Kids need mom and dad, not one or two of either. Data supports this.
So if homos can’t raise kids, tax breaks aren’t necessary and legal homo marriage is moot.

Fascinating Family Separation Statistics (Editor's Pick) 36.6% of all marriages in the US end in divorce. Roughly one in two children will see their parent's marriage breakup. 21% of children are being raised without their fathers in America.

There are approximately 424,000 foster youth nationwide.

There are nearly 1,000,000 abortions per year on average and that's just ones reported

Homos are more than capable of giving a child a home and love. And love is what a child needs.

 

[Turtlesoup]

Fascinating Family Separation Statistics (Editor's Pick) 36.6% of all marriages in the US end in divorce. Roughly one in two children will see their parent's marriage breakup. 21% of children are being raised without their fathers in America.

There are approximately 424,000 foster youth nationwide.

There are nearly 1,000,000 abortions per year on average and that's just ones reported

Homos are more than capable of giving a child a home and love. And love is what a child needs.

You advocate for making it worse. End welfare as we know it----fewer children will be born without fathers and there will be fewer foster children. Far less child abuse as weel. Ending the illegals flooding in would end many if not most of the fosters children btw. Abortions will happen and need to happen-----the alternative is to force women to have kids that they don't want, to force the birth of children with serious mental physical conditions to be born that no one wants and will be a drain on taxpayers and society, or to risk the mothers and other twin siblings life to have a child that medical says that the womb can not handle resulting in more bad. The planet is GROSSLY overpopulated-----humans are eating natural resources and making the survival of entire species impossible. The planet is out of balance with the overpopulation which destroys the planet for everyone and everything except for billionaires like Zuckerberg who doesn't care about everyone else's suffering. Overpopulation leads to more wars, more crime, less resources, more pollution, more diseases-------there are to many people now.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

You said that as if the alternative to an adoption by a same-sex couple is always a mom-dad adoption. I’m saying that for many children, the alternative is no adoption at all so they remain in a situation much worse than having two parents who are eager to take care of them and happen to be same-sex.

How would you handle it if a couple stated in their will that they wanted a gay couple to adopt their children if they died in a car accident? would you oppose their parental right to have that happen?

You’re still trying to justify mainstreaming anomalies. Wagging the dog.

 

[Seymour Flops]

You’re still trying to justify mainstreaming anomalies. Wagging the dog.

"Mainstreaming anomalies?"

By that logic allowing left-handed people to be golfers and even designing clubs especially for them is "mainstreaming anomalies." So is allowing redheads to compete in beauty contests, or allowing a tall Chinese guy to play in the NBA.

The beauty that is supposed to be a free country is that we let people be different and we don't deny them their rights over differences that harm no one. In fact a real freedom lover knows that there is no "let" to it. People have rights, which mean that there is no right to override those rights regardless of how good we think the reasons are, including that they we think that they are "anomalies."

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

"Mainstreaming anomalies?"

By that logic allowing left-handed people to be golfers and even designing clubs especially for them is "mainstreaming anomalies." So is allowing redheads to compete in beauty contests, or allowing a tall Chinese guy to play in the NBA.

The beauty that is supposed to be a free country is that we let people be different and we don't deny them their rights over differences that harm no one. In fact a real freedom lover knows that there is no "let" to it. People have rights, which mean that there is no right to override those rights regardless of how good we think the reasons are, including that they we think that they are "anomalies."

Being left handed or red-headed or Chinese have no bearing on golf or basketball. Heteros can procreate, homos can’t.
Forcing subsidies is not a right.
This is why democrats should not be allowed to vote. Too stupid to handle or deserve the responsibility.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Being left handed or red-headed or Chinese have no bearing on golf or basketball. Heteros can procreate, homos can’t.
Forcing subsidies is not a right.
This is why democrats should not be allowed to vote. Too stupid to handle or deserve the responsibility.

Is forcing subsidies a right for opposite sex couples?

No?

I agree. So let's end all subsidies for getting married and let individuals decide who they marry.

Having government decide who individuals may and may not marry based on who it deems worthy of subsidy is pure authorian collectivism.

 

[Blues Man]

The government has no obligation to pander to the religious beliefs of the population.

Marriage is as far as the government is concerned a property contract. It is a binding legal agreement that is entered freely. Equal protection under the law cannot specify who gets that protection and who doesn't.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

Is forcing subsidies a right for opposite sex couples?

No?

I agree. So let's end all subsidies for getting married and let individuals decide who they marry.

Having government decide who individuals may and may not marry based on who it deems worthy of subsidy is pure authorian collectivism.

Typical lefty response. Throw out the baby with the bath water. Somebody creates the brilliant by idea of legal marriage to help sustain the species in a civilized society and Marxist dupes come along and destroy it all in ignorance and stupidity.

 

[bodecea]

Being left handed or red-headed or Chinese have no bearing on golf or basketball. Heteros can procreate, homos can’t.
Forcing subsidies is not a right.
This is why democrats should not be allowed to vote. Too stupid to handle or deserve the responsibility.

When was procreation the requirement of legal marriage?

 

[Seymour Flops]

Typical lefty response. Throw out the baby with the bath water. Somebody creates the brilliant by idea of legal marriage to help sustain the species in a civilized society and Marxist dupes come along and destroy it all in ignorance and stupidity.

If legal marriage is such a brilliant idea, why does it need to be subsidized?

Are you a liberal democrat? They are the ones who come up with "ideas so great, they are mandatory!"

Do you seriously believe that if the government did not subsidize legal marriage between opposite sex couple, there would be no more procreation?

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

If legal marriage is such a brilliant idea, why does it need to be subsidized?

Are you a liberal democrat? They are the ones who come up with "ideas so great, they are mandatory!"

Do you seriously believe that if the government did not subsidize legal marriage between opposite sex couple, there would be no more procreation?

The idea behind the tax breaks is because of the extra time and effort involved in raising more humans. Duh.