I don't think these will work:

[GFR7]

Some GOP ideas vis a vis SCOTUS taking up Same Sex Marriage:

1. Oklahoma:

Bill Would Require All Marriage Licenses To Be Issued By Religious Clergy

http://www.thenewcivilrightsmovemen...age_licenses_to_be_issued_by_religious_clergy

2. Amendment: (Backed by Bobby Jindal):

Ted Cruz To Introduce Federal Amendment Prohibiting Judges From Overturning Gay Marriage Bans

http://www.thenewcivilrightsmovemen...ruz_wants_federal_marriage_amendment_same_sex

Jindal: I’d Back a Constitutional Amendment to Leave Marriage to the States

http://www.nationalreview.com/corne...endment-leave-marriage-states-patrick-brennan

 

[musterion]

I don't think these will work

I thought this would be a thread on sodomites trying to make their own baby instead of renting to own.

Bill Would Require All Marriage Licenses To Be Issued By Religious Clergy

Yet they're sure to have leftist lesbian "pastors" somewhere in Oklahoma, so there'd be no point.

Ted Cruz To Introduce Federal Amendment Prohibiting Judges From Overturning Gay Marriage Bans

Congress will never run it to the goal line.

Jindal: I’d Back a Constitutional Amendment to Leave Marriage to the States

Won't work. Some fed judge will say if one state allows it, full faith and credit, etc etc.

You're right, none of it will work. Don't tell ACW, though, he'll have a pants tantrum.

 

[GFR7]

I thought this would be a thread on sodomites trying to make their own baby instead of renting to own.

:think: .........

 

[False Prophet]

I thought

 

[resodko]

Don't tell ACW, though, he'll have a pants tantrum.

:freak:

 

[GFR7]

Yet they're sure to have leftist lesbian "pastors" somewhere in Oklahoma, so there'd be no point.

I know. I thought of this, too. lain:

Congress will never run it to the goal line.
Won't work. Some fed judge will say if one state allows it, full faith and credit, etc etc.You're right, none of it will work. Don't tell ACW, though, he'll have a pants tantrum.

Well, aCW is so stupid, that he thinks all of this will be bypassed with re-criminalization. If you don't agree, he calls you a "homosexualist". Which is why he and I are not currently speaking. :chuckle:

 

[musterion]

He's convinced I'm a libertarian. Somehow. Whatever. Don't care.

 

[GFR7]

He's convinced I'm a libertarian. Somehow. Whatever. Don't care.

He says the same of me ---Me, neither. :nono:

 

[Buzzword]

I still haven't stopped laughing at Sally Kern's attempt to attack marriage equality in Oklahoma, WHEN HER SON IS ENGAGED TO HIS LONG-TIME BOYFRIEND.

 

[Christian Liberty]

He's convinced I'm a libertarian. Somehow. Whatever. Don't care.

He says the same of me ---Me, neither. :nono:

Hey, I'm proud to be a libertarian. What's so horrible of supporting minimal government control and maximum liberty?

 

[GFR7]

Hey, I'm proud to be a libertarian. What's so horrible of supporting minimal government control and maximum liberty?

Nothing , really, and libertarianism can conjoin with Christian precepts and values, as you've shown. It' s just that aCW thinks he can apply all sorts of labels to people, which they have not declared for themselves. He calls you and I both, 'homosexualists', calls me a liberal or an anarchist as well. He also says I recruit and destroy children.
You know how it is, CL. :nono:

 

[resodko]

Hey, I'm proud to be a libertarian.

and just think, only six years ago you were proud to have graduated from junior high :darwinsm:

 

[kmoney]

Some GOP ideas vis a vis SCOTUS taking up Same Sex Marriage:

1. Oklahoma:

Bill Would Require All Marriage Licenses To Be Issued By Religious Clergy

Yeah, don't see that flying at all.

2. Amendment: (Backed by Bobby Jindal):

Ted Cruz To Introduce Federal Amendment Prohibiting Judges From Overturning Gay Marriage Bans

http://www.thenewcivilrightsmovemen...ruz_wants_federal_marriage_amendment_same_sex

Jindal: I’d Back a Constitutional Amendment to Leave Marriage to the States

http://www.nationalreview.com/corne...endment-leave-marriage-states-patrick-brennan

:AMR: This one doesn't make sense. If you're going for a federal amendment then why not try for one that defines marriage as heterosexual or what Jindal proposed about leaving it up to the states. But an amendment prohibiting judges from overturning gay marriage bans just seems odd. It seems like the practical effect would be that it'd become a states issue. Am I missing something?

 

[kmoney]

Yet they're sure to have leftist lesbian "pastors" somewhere in Oklahoma, so there'd be no point.

Right. If their goal is to eliminate gay marriage then that wouldn't do it because I'd imagine most people could find a church to do it.

 

[GFR7]

Yeah, don't see that flying at all.



:AMR: This one doesn't make sense. If you're going for a federal amendment then why not try for one that defines marriage as heterosexual or what Jindal proposed about leaving it up to the states. But an amendment prohibiting judges from overturning gay marriage bans just seems odd. It seems like the practical effect would be that it'd become a states issue. Am I missing something?

It's apparently a reaction to what federal judges have been doing since the 2013 Windsor ruling. :idunno:

 

[TracerBullet]

It's apparently a reaction to what federal judges have been doing since the 2013 Windsor ruling. :idunno:

making rulings based on the constitution

 

[GFR7]

making rulings based on the constitution

Based on their own interpretation of the constitution.

 

[TracerBullet]

Based on their own interpretation of the constitution.

So all those conservative judges are purposefully misrepresenting the constitution?

 

[GFR7]

So all those conservative judges are purposefully misrepresenting the constitution?

No: They are following their consciences in light of how they interpret Windsor.

 

[TracerBullet]

No: They are following their consciences in light of how they interpret Windsor.

and you being a constitutional scholar know that they are wrong