The Left Loses Ground...

[bripat9643]

The contract is intended only for couples who are capable of reproducing.

No, it isn't, which is why no one asks if you can have children, and so many can't or no longer can. That argument also died in the courts so, give it up.

Yes it is, Nazi. The courts aren't the arbiters of absolute truth. Until about 20 years ago, when the queers started whining, no one even questioned the proposition that marriage existed for the purpose of reproduction. People would have looked at you as if you were mad if you suggested that gays should get married.

We don't need, or can even find, absolute truth, which doesn't exist. What we need is equality before the law. That is enough, and the courts can work that out, eventually.

In other words, there is no truth. That includes what you just posted, moron.

The absurdity of the nihilist argument was exposed 2000 years ago.

There are truths, not truth, and profound truths tend to have an opposite which is another profound truth. Not to worry my little infant, you will never understand, so, don't try.

You fail to understand that you're spouting idiocy that was exposed 2000 years ago.

 

[candycorn]

Lower what standard?

I am quoting just this part...

Left is lowering EVERY freaking standard possible!
.

If that were true (which it is't entirely), there is plenty of hysteria to go around...

Can't win an election, blame voter fraud
Still can't win an election, blame the moderator of the debates
Still can't win an election, blame the media
Still can't win an election, call the voters stupid

 

[PaintMyHouse]

I didn't claim anything of the kind my little infant. Equality is an American value, and in the Constitution. Since marriage here is a license from the state, and all are supposed to be equal that way unless a compelling reason can be found for them not to be, that ***** you right up the ass...

So if the license is from the state, what federal government has to do with it? It's states business to issue the license, or to deny it. Federal government is mingling in the State's rights for way to long. The reason why we have 10th Amendment is to define the balance of power between the federal government and the states. Just to remind, the amendment says that the federal government has only those powers specifically granted by the Constitution. The marriage is not one of them.

The States play, the Fed rules. Sucks for you, but it works. It's Constitutional...

Hmmm . . no, that's how the courts have destroyed the Constitution.

Not at all, they are making it come true. All men are becoming equal...

The idea that the courts, an arm of the government, could serve as an impartial arbiter of any dispute between the government and the people is too absurd for words. The function of the courts for the last 250 years has been to advance government power and justify government control at the expense of the rights of the people.

The People never had jack-shit for rights in the first place, if you mean power over their government. Of all the things the Founders feared, democracy was at the top of the list. They knew better, meaning most of you were worthy only of plowing the fields and making babies, that's all.

You, dumbass, weren't supposed to have a say, and you don't even now. If you were given one that would **** the place right into the ground. Unlike you, even then, they weren't fools...

 

[PaintMyHouse]

No, it isn't, which is why no one asks if you can have children, and so many can't or no longer can. That argument also died in the courts so, give it up.

Yes it is, Nazi. The courts aren't the arbiters of absolute truth. Until about 20 years ago, when the queers started whining, no one even questioned the proposition that marriage existed for the purpose of reproduction. People would have looked at you as if you were mad if you suggested that gays should get married.

We don't need, or can even find, absolute truth, which doesn't exist. What we need is equality before the law. That is enough, and the courts can work that out, eventually.

In other words, there is no truth. That includes what you just posted, moron.

The absurdity of the nihilist argument was exposed 2000 years ago.

There are truths, not truth, and profound truths tend to have an opposite which is another profound truth. Not to worry my little infant, you will never understand, so, don't try.

You fail to understand that you're spouting idiocy that was exposed 2000 years ago.

The truths I speak of are eternal, or close enough. See above.

 

[Ame®icano]

Lower what standard?

I am quoting just this part...

Left is lowering EVERY freaking standard possible!

Can't pass the test in school, lower the testing standard.
Can't pass police exam, lower the standard.
Can't pass military requirement, lower the requirement.
Can't get in college, lower the requirement or AA.
Can't date a hot chick, date a guy.
Won't work, give a welfare, disability and food stamps.
Affordable housing, ghettos.
Common core.
Bottom line, we didn't build that.

Wow. That statement was stripped of every ounce of context, wasn't it.

The issue being discussed was procreation as a requirement of marriage. One you won't touch with a 10 foot pole.

I excluded THAT part because I knew you'll stick to that.

Marriage is unity in between man and woman, as husband and wife.

Can't have that, too high of a norm? Change the definition, lower the norm.

Love your dog? Change the definition, marry a dog. Let him hump you. Who cares, you could adopt a child from Africa, or if is alpha dog, you may not have that choice, but you can save a dog from China by adopting it. And be a real family, so you can enjoy all the benefits from federal government. We simply can't be bigots and claim that marriage is a uniquely human institution, and I can assure you that animal-rights lovers will find this idea tempting.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Lower what standard?

I am quoting just this part...

Left is lowering EVERY freaking standard possible!

Can't pass the test in school, lower the testing standard.
Can't pass police exam, lower the standard.
Can't pass military requirement, lower the requirement.
Can't get in college, lower the requirement or AA.
Can't date a hot chick, date a guy.
Won't work, give a welfare, disability and food stamps.
Affordable housing, ghettos.
Common core.
Bottom line, we didn't build that.

Wow. That statement was stripped of every ounce of context, wasn't it.

The issue being discussed was procreation as a requirement of marriage. One you won't touch with a 10 foot pole.

I excluded THAT part because I knew you'll stick to that.

Marriage is unity in between man and woman, as husband and wife.

Can't have that, too high of a norm? Change the definition, lower the norm.

Love your dog? Change the definition, marry a dog. Let him hump you. Who cares, you could adopt a child from Africa, or if is alpha dog, you may not have that choice, but you can save a dog from China by adopting it. And be a real family, so you can enjoy all the benefits from federal government. We simply can't be bigots and claim that marriage is a uniquely human institution, and I can assure you that animal-rights lovers will find this idea tempting.

Two adults = equality, period. So sorry, but not really...

 

[TemplarKormac]

Would it be OK for an EMT who shows up at a car accident to refuse to treat a gravely injured person because they are gay? Or a doctor or nurse in an emergency room? How about a fireman, can he refuse to use the jaws of life? Would it be OK for a policeman to refuse to apprehend someone who was attacking a gay person?

Reductio ad absurdum.

How can you bring yourself to ask such a dishonest question? The flaw in your premise is that none of these people know who is gay and who isn't. It is literally quite impossible for them to discriminate. At that point, human is human.

I've absolutely no words for the absurdity you just posted as a response. Your question is incredibly deceptive. It would be like me asking "what if the EMT, the doctor, the fireman or the police officer were gay? Would they willingly discriminate against straight people?"

You really take me for a fool, don't you?

 

[TemplarKormac]

All right, let's expand on your premise that people should be able to adhere to their religious beliefs and refuse to service to gays.

I apologize in advance for the length of this post. But one can only take so much of your brand of dishonesty for so long. En garde!

You utterly and miserably failed in your attempt to "expand" on my premise. Because my premise wasn't meant to be "expanded" upon. Surely you are smart enough to know that my premise is limited to a unique set of circumstances; to a certain set of people and events, none of them relating to the activities of our first responders. You knew before you typed the first letter of your post that our first responders never think in such a discriminatory manner. You hoped to trap me within my own logic. Well, nice try.

If there was a gay man/woman I knew who was gay laying on the street bleeding to death, I would call for medical aid or render it as if he or she were straight. A life is a life, being gay or straight is irrelevant. The whole idea of tolerance is acceptance of the views, ideas, and preferences of anyone you encounter, without having to bend to their views, ideas, or preferences. Compassion doesn't know how to discriminate. But people, namely people like you and I, do.

My premise is based on the very consciences of the men and women you call bigots routinely, of whom are simply adhering to their faith, of whom you accuse of wanting to strip gays of their rights and whatnot. I myself don't want to strip anyone of their rights, I think gay marriage is sinful, yet, my beliefs tell me that I must not judge. If that is the case, they can marry regardless of what I believe. But when someone stands in the way of an individual and his God, that's where I draw the line. That is when I speak out.

Denying gays of services at a bakery, a photography studio, or for that matter denying them a bouquet of flowers in no way impedes that goal. They have plenty of other places to offer their patronage, places easily willing to accommodate them. And yes, they can still get married.

Intolerance, as Democrats and gay activists like to point out, is when you look to use government to force your ways and ideals on others, or legislating morality. They, the Democrats, routinely chastise Christians for forcing their faith on people. But look at you, look at your party, look at the people you fight for. You are all doing the same exact thing. You are forcing your worldview on others. This is a game of force, and whoever wins, everyone loses. The chasm that divides us now will be widened to that which is the distance between our Earth and the Moon, simply because nobody can bring themselves to simply tolerate each other.

I, unlike you, know the difference between tolerance and discrimination. You only know only the latter. Democrats and people of your ilk are famous for discrimination, as they are the masters of identity politics. They have words for any occasion; namely "bigot," "misogynist," or "racist." The very act of singling someone out and assigning them a negative identity based on their views or beliefs is the very manifestation of discrimination. So fervent you are to defend gays, blacks, or women that you let your tolerances of other people's beliefs evaporate. The fangs and claws are bared, and you don't care who it is you tear apart.

Now, to further expound on your previous point, lets use the 3,000 people who died in the WTC on 9/11. The firefighters who sacrificed their lives to try to save them didn't know nor care if anyone in those buildings were gay. Not one. You my friend must apply politics to any kind of situation when it isn't needed. It is absolutely repulsive that one cannot take one breath without politics hanging on the very air he breathes. You see your world though political eyes.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Lower what standard?

I am quoting just this part...

Left is lowering EVERY freaking standard possible!

Can't pass the test in school, lower the testing standard.
Can't pass police exam, lower the standard.
Can't pass military requirement, lower the requirement.
Can't get in college, lower the requirement or AA.
Can't date a hot chick, date a guy.
Won't work, give a welfare, disability and food stamps.
Affordable housing, ghettos.
Common core.
Bottom line, we didn't build that.

Wow. That statement was stripped of every ounce of context, wasn't it.

The issue being discussed was procreation as a requirement of marriage. One you won't touch with a 10 foot pole.

I excluded THAT part because I knew you'll stick to that.

Marriage is unity in between man and woman, as husband and wife.

Can't have that, too high of a norm? Change the definition, lower the norm.

Love your dog? Change the definition, marry a dog. Let him hump you. Who cares, you could adopt a child from Africa, or if is alpha dog, you may not have that choice, but you can save a dog from China by adopting it. And be a real family, so you can enjoy all the benefits from federal government. We simply can't be bigots and claim that marriage is a uniquely human institution, and I can assure you that animal-rights lovers will find this idea tempting.

Same sex couples have been getting married for thousands of years. Just because a certain set of laws in a certain country did not legally recognize the relationships is irrelevant. The relationships themselves have always existed.

 

[Seawytch]

Would it be OK for an EMT who shows up at a car accident to refuse to treat a gravely injured person because they are gay? Or a doctor or nurse in an emergency room? How about a fireman, can he refuse to use the jaws of life? Would it be OK for a policeman to refuse to apprehend someone who was attacking a gay person?

Reductio ad absurdum.

How can you bring yourself to ask such a dishonest question? The flaw in your premise is that none of these people know who is gay and who isn't. It is literally quite impossible for them to discriminate. At that point, human is human.

I've absolutely no words for the absurdity you just posted as a response. Your question is incredibly deceptive. It would be like me asking "what if the EMT, the doctor, the fireman or the police officer were gay? Would they willingly discriminate against straight people?"

You really take me for a fool, don't you?

It's an absolutely valid question. Where does your "right to discriminate" end? As to how they would know the person is gay, you've obviously never lived in a small town before. Outside of that, what if the person in need of assistance was IN a gay bar? The EMT arrives on scene of an accident and sees the victim's "no on Prop 8" bumper sticker. The doctor at the hospital notices the patient is brought in by his male partner, etc. There are a million ways the individual could know or perceive the person's sexual orientation.

Do they get to discriminate or not?

 

[bripat9643]

Yes it is, Nazi. The courts aren't the arbiters of absolute truth. Until about 20 years ago, when the queers started whining, no one even questioned the proposition that marriage existed for the purpose of reproduction. People would have looked at you as if you were mad if you suggested that gays should get married.

We don't need, or can even find, absolute truth, which doesn't exist. What we need is equality before the law. That is enough, and the courts can work that out, eventually.

In other words, there is no truth. That includes what you just posted, moron.

The absurdity of the nihilist argument was exposed 2000 years ago.

There are truths, not truth, and profound truths tend to have an opposite which is another profound truth. Not to worry my little infant, you will never understand, so, don't try.

You fail to understand that you're spouting idiocy that was exposed 2000 years ago.

The truths I speak of are eternal, or close enough. See above.

You just got done saying there is no truth. You can't seem to make up your mind about what you actually believe. That's what happens when your claims are exposed as obvious bullshit.

Someone who says that your rights are whatever the government tells you they are is not someone who is capable of rational consistent thought.

 

[bripat9643]

Would it be OK for an EMT who shows up at a car accident to refuse to treat a gravely injured person because they are gay? Or a doctor or nurse in an emergency room? How about a fireman, can he refuse to use the jaws of life? Would it be OK for a policeman to refuse to apprehend someone who was attacking a gay person?

Reductio ad absurdum.

How can you bring yourself to ask such a dishonest question? The flaw in your premise is that none of these people know who is gay and who isn't. It is literally quite impossible for them to discriminate. At that point, human is human.

I've absolutely no words for the absurdity you just posted as a response. Your question is incredibly deceptive. It would be like me asking "what if the EMT, the doctor, the fireman or the police officer were gay? Would they willingly discriminate against straight people?"

You really take me for a fool, don't you?

It's an absolutely valid question. Where does your "right to discriminate" end?

It ends when you work for the government. Otherwise you should be free to associate with whomever you choose, regardless of the reason.

As to how they would know the person is gay, you've obviously never lived in a small town before. Outside of that, what if the person in need of assistance was IN a gay bar? The EMT arrives on scene of an accident and sees the victim's "no on Prop 8" bumper sticker. The doctor at the hospital notices the patient is brought in by his male partner, etc. There are a million ways the individual could know or perceive the person's sexual orientation.

Do they get to discriminate or not?

As always your example is absurd. It would never happen because the ambulance company wouldn't allow it. The hospital also wouldn't allow it.

 

[bripat9643]

Lower what standard?

I am quoting just this part...

Left is lowering EVERY freaking standard possible!

Can't pass the test in school, lower the testing standard.
Can't pass police exam, lower the standard.
Can't pass military requirement, lower the requirement.
Can't get in college, lower the requirement or AA.
Can't date a hot chick, date a guy.
Won't work, give a welfare, disability and food stamps.
Affordable housing, ghettos.
Common core.
Bottom line, we didn't build that.

Wow. That statement was stripped of every ounce of context, wasn't it.

The issue being discussed was procreation as a requirement of marriage. One you won't touch with a 10 foot pole.

I excluded THAT part because I knew you'll stick to that.

Marriage is unity in between man and woman, as husband and wife.

Can't have that, too high of a norm? Change the definition, lower the norm.

Love your dog? Change the definition, marry a dog. Let him hump you. Who cares, you could adopt a child from Africa, or if is alpha dog, you may not have that choice, but you can save a dog from China by adopting it. And be a real family, so you can enjoy all the benefits from federal government. We simply can't be bigots and claim that marriage is a uniquely human institution, and I can assure you that animal-rights lovers will find this idea tempting.

Same sex couples have been getting married for thousands of years. Just because a certain set of laws in a certain country did not legally recognize the relationships is irrelevant. The relationships themselves have always existed.

Fine then. Gay people can get married without legal recognition. I have no problem with that.

 

[danielpalos]

I can't believe Men as practitioners of the Art of the Husbandman have any problem with contraception, even if only to potentially lower our tax burden.

 

[Ame®icano]

Same sex couples have been getting married for thousands of years.

Thousands of years? Are you sure it's not millions?

How about you give some proof of that? Give us some examples.

Just because a certain set of laws in a certain country did not legally recognize the relationships is irrelevant. The relationships themselves have always existed.

In your words, if relationship exists, it should be legally recognized. Is that where you're going?

Gay relationships? Yeah, they existed.
So were pedophilia, necrophilia, bestiality, incest... So following your logic, just because certain set of laws does not legally recognize it, is irrelevant.

 

[Bfgrn]

All right, let's expand on your premise that people should be able to adhere to their religious beliefs and refuse to service to gays.

I apologize in advance for the length of this post. But one can only take so much of your brand of dishonesty for so long. En garde!

You utterly and miserably failed in your attempt to "expand" on my premise. Because my premise wasn't meant to be "expanded" upon. Surely you are smart enough to know that my premise is limited to a unique set of circumstances; to a certain set of people and events, none of them relating to the activities of our first responders. You knew before you typed the first letter of your post that our first responders never think in such a discriminatory manner. You hoped to trap me within my own logic. Well, nice try.

If there was a gay man/woman I knew who was gay laying on the street bleeding to death, I would call for medical aid or render it as if he or she were straight. A life is a life, being gay or straight is irrelevant. The whole idea of tolerance is acceptance of the views, ideas, and preferences of anyone you encounter, without having to bend to their views, ideas, or preferences. Compassion doesn't know how to discriminate. But people, namely people like you and I, do.

My premise is based on the very consciences of the men and women you call bigots routinely, of whom are simply adhering to their faith, of whom you accuse of wanting to strip gays of their rights and whatnot. I myself don't want to strip anyone of their rights, I think gay marriage is sinful, yet, my beliefs tell me that I must not judge. If that is the case, they can marry regardless of what I believe. But when someone stands in the way of an individual and his God, that's where I draw the line. That is when I speak out.

Denying gays of services at a bakery, a photography studio, or for that matter denying them a bouquet of flowers in no way impedes that goal. They have plenty of other places to offer their patronage, places easily willing to accommodate them. And yes, they can still get married.

Intolerance, as Democrats and gay activists like to point out, is when you look to use government to force your ways and ideals on others, or legislating morality. They, the Democrats, routinely chastise Christians for forcing their faith on people. But look at you, look at your party, look at the people you fight for. You are all doing the same exact thing. You are forcing your worldview on others. This is a game of force, and whoever wins, everyone loses. The chasm that divides us now will be widened to that which is the distance between our Earth and the Moon, simply because nobody can bring themselves to simply tolerate each other.

I, unlike you, know the difference between tolerance and discrimination. You only know only the latter. Democrats and people of your ilk are famous for discrimination, as they are the masters of identity politics. They have words for any occasion; namely "bigot," "misogynist," or "racist." The very act of singling someone out and assigning them a negative identity based on their views or beliefs is the very manifestation of discrimination. So fervent you are to defend gays, blacks, or women that you let your tolerances of other people's beliefs evaporate. The fangs and claws are bared, and you don't care who it is you tear apart.

Now, to further expound on your previous point, lets use the 3,000 people who died in the WTC on 9/11. The firefighters who sacrificed their lives to try to save them didn't know nor care if anyone in those buildings were gay. Not one. You my friend must apply politics to any kind of situation when it isn't needed. It is absolutely repulsive that one cannot take one breath without politics hanging on the very air he breathes. You see your world though political eyes.

My argument is valid, and has been made by others. You just don't want to face the fact that it IS discrimination.


On legal discrimination
Published 8:00am Thursday, December 11, 2014


Last week the Michigan State House passed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, or RFRA, which allows for someone to discriminate against others based on their personal religious beliefs. This bill is now waiting in the State Senate and many political insiders feel that it has a very good chance of being passed.

The sponsor of this legislation, House Speaker Jase Bolger claims that this is not a license to discriminate but opponents of the RFRA state that it will make it legal to refuse service, deny employment or housing, or violate the rights of others based on religious grounds.

Also, as one Michigan state representative pointed out, this law could be used to deny someone medical care. For instance, a pharmacist could refuse to dispense birth control or HIV medications, and that has already occurred under a similar law in Illinois, or a paramedic could refuse to treat an accident victim. Or a police officer could refuse to intercede in a domestic violence dispute or like a recent event that occurred in Oklahoma where a police officer refused to safeguard a mosque or in Utah where an officer refused to police a gay pride parade and both are paid by the taxpayers to carry out these sworn duties.

 

[danielpalos]

Sounds more like the Establish of Religious forms of supremacy over that which our Founding Fathers Ordained and Established and repugnant to that thus Spake by Them, in Article the Sixth.

 

[TemplarKormac]

All right, let's expand on your premise that people should be able to adhere to their religious beliefs and refuse to service to gays.

I apologize in advance for the length of this post. But one can only take so much of your brand of dishonesty for so long. En garde!

You utterly and miserably failed in your attempt to "expand" on my premise. Because my premise wasn't meant to be "expanded" upon. Surely you are smart enough to know that my premise is limited to a unique set of circumstances; to a certain set of people and events, none of them relating to the activities of our first responders. You knew before you typed the first letter of your post that our first responders never think in such a discriminatory manner. You hoped to trap me within my own logic. Well, nice try.

If there was a gay man/woman I knew who was gay laying on the street bleeding to death, I would call for medical aid or render it as if he or she were straight. A life is a life, being gay or straight is irrelevant. The whole idea of tolerance is acceptance of the views, ideas, and preferences of anyone you encounter, without having to bend to their views, ideas, or preferences. Compassion doesn't know how to discriminate. But people, namely people like you and I, do.

My premise is based on the very consciences of the men and women you call bigots routinely, of whom are simply adhering to their faith, of whom you accuse of wanting to strip gays of their rights and whatnot. I myself don't want to strip anyone of their rights, I think gay marriage is sinful, yet, my beliefs tell me that I must not judge. If that is the case, they can marry regardless of what I believe. But when someone stands in the way of an individual and his God, that's where I draw the line. That is when I speak out.

Denying gays of services at a bakery, a photography studio, or for that matter denying them a bouquet of flowers in no way impedes that goal. They have plenty of other places to offer their patronage, places easily willing to accommodate them. And yes, they can still get married.

Intolerance, as Democrats and gay activists like to point out, is when you look to use government to force your ways and ideals on others, or legislating morality. They, the Democrats, routinely chastise Christians for forcing their faith on people. But look at you, look at your party, look at the people you fight for. You are all doing the same exact thing. You are forcing your worldview on others. This is a game of force, and whoever wins, everyone loses. The chasm that divides us now will be widened to that which is the distance between our Earth and the Moon, simply because nobody can bring themselves to simply tolerate each other.

I, unlike you, know the difference between tolerance and discrimination. You only know only the latter. Democrats and people of your ilk are famous for discrimination, as they are the masters of identity politics. They have words for any occasion; namely "bigot," "misogynist," or "racist." The very act of singling someone out and assigning them a negative identity based on their views or beliefs is the very manifestation of discrimination. So fervent you are to defend gays, blacks, or women that you let your tolerances of other people's beliefs evaporate. The fangs and claws are bared, and you don't care who it is you tear apart.

Now, to further expound on your previous point, lets use the 3,000 people who died in the WTC on 9/11. The firefighters who sacrificed their lives to try to save them didn't know nor care if anyone in those buildings were gay. Not one. You my friend must apply politics to any kind of situation when it isn't needed. It is absolutely repulsive that one cannot take one breath without politics hanging on the very air he breathes. You see your world though political eyes.

My argument is valid, and has been made by others. You just don't want to face the fact that it IS discrimination.


On legal discrimination
Published 8:00am Thursday, December 11, 2014


Last week the Michigan State House passed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, or RFRA, which allows for someone to discriminate against others based on their personal religious beliefs. This bill is now waiting in the State Senate and many political insiders feel that it has a very good chance of being passed.

The sponsor of this legislation, House Speaker Jase Bolger claims that this is not a license to discriminate but opponents of the RFRA state that it will make it legal to refuse service, deny employment or housing, or violate the rights of others based on religious grounds.

Also, as one Michigan state representative pointed out, this law could be used to deny someone medical care. For instance, a pharmacist could refuse to dispense birth control or HIV medications, and that has already occurred under a similar law in Illinois, or a paramedic could refuse to treat an accident victim. Or a police officer could refuse to intercede in a domestic violence dispute or like a recent event that occurred in Oklahoma where a police officer refused to safeguard a mosque or in Utah where an officer refused to police a gay pride parade and both are paid by the taxpayers to carry out these sworn duties.

You can keep repeating yourself, but you can't face the fact that you are just as discriminatory as you claim we are. Oh by the way, I love how you completely dodged my point.

 

[TemplarKormac]

By the way, for those of you familiar with things called dictionaries, discrimination isn't limited to legal matters. Discrimination is the ability to differentiate, pick out and delineate between one person, thing, or another.

Yes, yes, keep quoting me the legal definitions of discrimination, and I'll point you to what the First Amendment says about freedom to practice one's faith. Last I checked there was no clause saying where and when a person could do that.

 

[danielpalos]

I believe the left merely needs to question Jurisdiction of the Right; otherwise,

I hereby make a motion to petition a Pope for a contingent of subject matter specialists

to hold Inquiries into the moral rectitude of those claiming an exemption from our supreme law of the land in favor of the morals of Religion.