Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Actually, no. You heard what you wanted to hear as someone who supports this abomination.Actually every republican coming up for confirmation in the senate swore up and down that Roe v Wade was precedent, settled law, and they believed in stare decisis
Okay. Got it. You are a monstrous and insane tyrant.How so? They come under the "general welfare" clause
bullshit, what is dangerous long term at all levels of government is the dem/lib ideology that if it feels good it should be legal and that bribery of federal officials is fine as long as they are democrats, and that a senile old fool who campaigned from his basement and could not get more than 25 people to a rally got the most votes in history and won over a guy who routinely got 50,000 people to a rally and represented the views and beliefs of a majority of americans (except on the west coast and northeast where idiocy reigns supreme).I didn’t think SCOTUS would overturn Roe v Wade after swearing it was safe
Republicans are plotting long term
They are dangerous at all levels of Government
1. That’s the system we have. A federalist one.So what is the point of having a country if individual states can deny basic human rights? All citizens of a country should have the same rights wherever they live.
maybe not, but muslims toss them off rooftops. Is that not a death penalty?
bullshit, what is dangerous long term at all levels of government is the dem/lib ideology that if it feels good it should be legal and that bribery of federal officials is fine as long as they are democrats, and that a senile old fool who campaigned from his basement and could not get more than 25 people to a rally got the most votes in history and won over a guy who routinely got 50,000 people to a rally and represented the views and beliefs of a majority of americans (except on the west coast and northeast where idiocy reigns supreme).
Okay. Got it. You are a monstrous and insane tyrant.
To you, Mandating the legality of killing kids “promotes the general welfare of the states” and thus Congress has infinite power to inflict your vague and insidious will…
By that argument, on the contrary, let’s just legalize killing pro-aborts if they don’t leave the country - it would vastly improve the country.
You are wildly misreading the Muslim community overseas if you believe that.You don't know one country from another. That was in Iraq. ISIS has bastardized Islam and they are the enemy of all Muslims.
I don’t believe in any gods.You must be one of those Dominionist evangelical Christians.
The restrictions as they stand deal with issues of consent and cosanguinity that can lead to genetic abnormality. 2 non related consenting adults should be able to marry each other.1. That’s the system we have. A federalist one.
2. No one was barred from being married, there were just restrictions on who you could be married to. Which by the way is still the case. And that differs from state to state. You can’t marry anyone you want currently.
What business is it of yours what 2 consenting adults do in their bedroom? Why can’t I marry 2 different women at the same time? Why can’t I marry whomever I’m in love with?The restrictions as they stand deal with issues of consent and cosanguinity that can lead to genetic abnormality. 2 non related consenting adults should be able to marry each other.
I personally have no issue with polygamist marriages. Close relationships are a bit iffy, but I'm not 100% against as long as there is free consent.What business is it of yours what 2 consenting adults do in their bedroom? Why can’t I marry 2 different women at the same time? Why can’t I marry whomever I’m in love with?
I get it as long as you agree with the restrictions you’re cool with it. Otherwise the restrictions are bigoted.
The point being States have in the past and continue to regulate who can marry who and those restrictions vary from state to state. And that’s ok. Marriage isn’t the only issue either. There are countless laws That vary from state to state. That’s the beauty of a federalist system. We (the country) all agree ( though I question whether this is still true) on core values and over arching concepts for the country, but because States can have varying laws within those confines we can choose to live in states that best suit our individual way of thinking. It also allows us to experiment on a smaller scale than the whole nation with different ideas and ways of doing things. And hopefully the good spreads and the bad gets weeded out.I personally have no issue with polygamist marriages. Close relationships are a bit iffy, but I'm not 100% against as long as there is free consent.
bullshit, what is dangerous long term at all levels of government is the dem/lib ideology that if it feels good it should be legal and that bribery of federal officials is fine as long as they are democrats, and that a senile old fool who campaigned from his basement and could not get more than 25 people to a rally got the most votes in history and won over a guy who routinely got 50,000 people to a rally and represented the views and beliefs of a majority of americans (except on the west coast and northeast where idiocy reigns supreme).
This is not about what anyone does in their bedroom. What you do not seem to get is that it is not about sex at all. Marriage is not required for sexWhat business is it of yours what 2 consenting adults do in their bedroom?
That is a separate issue with different legal and social implications. If you want to marry 2 or more people, or your Dog or your gun you are free to pursue that through the courts of the legislative process. Gay couples made the case that there is no compelling govrnment interest in banning their marriage and therefor such bans were found to be unconstitutional. You would have to do the same. However it may be an uphill fight because unlike with two consenting sanme sex couples, the government my be able articulate a compelling reason for not allowing it.Why can’t I marry 2 different women at the same time?
No one is saying that. See post 856I get it as long as you agree with the restrictions you’re cool with it. Otherwise the restrictions are bigoted.
You must be one of those Dominionist evangelical Christians.
You are wildly misreading the Muslim community overseas if you believe that.
Really? So that is your solution? If someone feels that they are being treated unfairly, or discriminated against because the majority of the people and/or lawmakers in their state are bigots, they can just pack up and move elsewhere? THINK about what you are saying!The point being States have in the past and continue to regulate who can marry who and those restrictions vary from state to state. And that’s ok. Marriage isn’t the only issue either. There are countless laws That vary from state to state. That’s the beauty of a federalist system. We (the country) all agree ( though I question whether this is still true) on core values and over arching concepts for the country, but because States can have varying laws within those confines we can choose to live in states that best suit our individual way of thinking. It also allows us to experiment on a smaller scale than the whole nation with different ideas and ways of doing things. And hopefully the good spreads and the bad gets weeded out.
