(01-19-2015 04:45 PM)oliveandblue Wrote:  It's not as if the cast from Queer Eye is going to break into their living room and get married during dinner time.

Hypothetically, if that happened, I wonder if I'd be charged with a hate crime for giving them all a good dose of the 2nd amendment.

(01-19-2015 05:14 PM)MemphisTiger15 Wrote:  

(01-19-2015 04:45 PM)oliveandblue Wrote:  It's not as if the cast from Queer Eye is going to break into their living room and get married during dinner time.

Hypothetically, if that happened, I wonder if I'd be charged with a hate crime for giving them all a good dose of the 2nd amendment.

Simple.

Yes.

(01-19-2015 05:16 PM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  

(01-19-2015 05:14 PM)MemphisTiger15 Wrote:  

(01-19-2015 04:45 PM)oliveandblue Wrote:  It's not as if the cast from Queer Eye is going to break into their living room and get married during dinner time.

Hypothetically, if that happened, I wonder if I'd be charged with a hate crime for giving them all a good dose of the 2nd amendment.

Simple.

Yes.

Nope.

Breaking and entering is a clear and urgent threat to your life. Easy for a defense lawyer to deal with.

(01-16-2015 04:42 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Prediction. 7 to 2 in favor of equality. Last day of June.

Please change the title of this thread. They agreed to hear a gay marriage case not a marriage equality case.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

(01-19-2015 04:27 PM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  

(01-19-2015 04:20 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(01-19-2015 04:13 PM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  

(01-17-2015 10:58 AM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(01-17-2015 10:51 AM)Paul M Wrote:  For sane intelligent people marriage always will remain the sole providence of a man and woman.

I don't give a damn if a man visits another in a hospital or leaves all his assets to another. Having rights to do such does not a marriage make.

I don't give a damn about what you give a damn about...I care what the federal govt has to say...no one cares about what you choose to think about gay marriage...that's why they asked the court, and not Paul.

Such a sense of self importance.

Yeah sure... You were about to explode over the "extremist" judges when they ruled in favor of Hobby Lobby. Nobody said you couldn't have your super special welcome home dinners anymore.

Quote that, because you're confusing me with someone else.

I'm not gonna go searching for it. You called the judges activists.

No, I didn't...but OK.

Can one of the leftists on this board define marriage equality?

Nor some leftist book definition. In their own words.

(01-19-2015 04:17 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  The religious right is not going to win on this issue. Not in the political or judicial arena, anyway. And given the true function of law, that is probably the right answer from the legal perspective, regardless of what your beliefs regarding morality.

What I don't want to see is for republicans to waste so much political capital on this issue that they lose the election to the tax-and-spend socialist/communist democrats. Of course, given the republican penchant for deficit-and-spend, I'm not sure they would be any better.

agree

(01-19-2015 04:17 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  The religious right is not going to win on this issue. Not in the political or judicial arena, anyway. And given the true function of law, that is probably the right answer from the legal perspective, regardless of what your beliefs regarding morality.

What is "the true function of law"?

Quote:What I don't want to see is for republicans to waste so much political capital on this issue that they lose the election to the tax-and-spend socialist/communist democrats.

Romney/Ryan scarcely mentioned it at all. Would you advise GOP candidates to emulate them, on this particular issue?

Quote:Of course, given the republican penchant for deficit-and-spend, I'm not sure they would be any better.

Living in Texas, you have the luxury of voting 3rd-party and knowing that it won't affect the outcome. People living in the proverbial "purple" states have to weigh the costs of that strategy with the utmost care.

(01-19-2015 10:54 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(01-19-2015 04:17 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  The religious right is not going to win on this issue. Not in the political or judicial arena, anyway. And given the true function of law, that is probably the right answer from the legal perspective, regardless of what your beliefs regarding morality.

What is "the true function of law"?

Quote:What I don't want to see is for republicans to waste so much political capital on this issue that they lose the election to the tax-and-spend socialist/communist democrats.

Romney/Ryan scarcely mentioned it at all. Would you advise GOP candidates to emulate them, on this particular issue?

Quote:Of course, given the republican penchant for deficit-and-spend, I'm not sure they would be any better.

Living in Texas, you have the luxury of voting 3rd-party and knowing that it won't affect the outcome. People living in the proverbial "purple" states have to weigh the costs of that strategy with the utmost care.

What would be different under Romney right now? Honest question.

(01-20-2015 08:28 AM)BleedsHuskieRed Wrote:  

(01-19-2015 10:54 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(01-19-2015 04:17 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Of course, given the republican penchant for deficit-and-spend, I'm not sure they would be any better.

Living in Texas, you have the luxury of voting 3rd-party and knowing that it won't affect the outcome. People living in the proverbial "purple" states have to weigh the costs of that strategy with the utmost care.

What would be different under Romney right now? Honest question.

ObamaCare would be either dead, or a dead letter.

(01-20-2015 08:57 AM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(01-20-2015 08:28 AM)BleedsHuskieRed Wrote:  

(01-19-2015 10:54 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(01-19-2015 04:17 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Of course, given the republican penchant for deficit-and-spend, I'm not sure they would be any better.

Living in Texas, you have the luxury of voting 3rd-party and knowing that it won't affect the outcome. People living in the proverbial "purple" states have to weigh the costs of that strategy with the utmost care.

What would be different under Romney right now? Honest question.

ObamaCare would be either dead, or a dead letter.

Because Romney-Care is just so very different...

(01-19-2015 04:20 PM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  

(01-18-2015 07:17 PM)Smaug Wrote:  The Republicans should really try to find a face-saving way to not be on the wrong side of this thing.

They won't, but they should.

Who says it's the wrong side? You thinking that it's right?

Perhaps I should have used the term "losing side".