ddnww
New member
but they have had trump the chump's dumbazz on there :tongue:
Stupid Supreme Court
- Thread starter KidVermicious
- Start date
but they have had trump the chump's dumbazz on there :tongue:
ndcent
New member
Empty rhetoric says what?
wake_rider
New member
Nope. Personally, you are free to wave any flag you would like. States as political entities/partners of this Union, should not show any support of the ideology that attaches itself to such a flag. Nor should they fly a pro-Christian, Muslim, or atheist flag.
It just does not belong on institutional grounds. No personal freedom removed, so you are free to fly whatever symbol you feel best describes your point of view.
BlackWorksInc
New member
Wait, I'm confused. Are you saying that because the Government stepped in and stated that same sex marriage is constitutionally legal it infringes the people's right to freedom of expression and choice?
By permitting gay marriage?
Who's losing freedom of expression and choice?
Easier to move than wait for the feds to change.
nevada
Senior Member
my response was towards more than just same sex marriage. but yes, the federal government has no business sticking its nose into marriage. at BEST that is a state issue. id break it down more than that, and say it should be locally managed. by city/county/district whatever.
the flag, no it shouldn't ever be flown in an official capacity, but anywhere else should be fine. along with the flag, there are a handful of other ridiculous situations going on because of it. its insanity.
and then there is the ACA, as a free American NOONE should ever be forced to purchase a product. EVER.
Breaking it down would mean it would be legal here and there and some people would lose their marriage because of a move. That's absurd unless applied to all marriages.
Pretty much agree.
Instead they should use other government funded programs like Medicaid? We're forced to pay taxes which is a product that funds things we have no say about. So is Social Security which we are required to buy. I won't go on but you get the idea.
eep:<lol></lol>
MONTYMTB
New member
I agree with you here, but I don't think the SC had much choice at this point. I think they waited as long as they could hoping that the states would handle it, but when you have states like mine with a bunch of morally superior hypocrites it probably wasn't happening anytime soon.
Agree here also, but if you could just see the type of people who want to display it on a regular basis it might give you pause.
BlackWorksInc
New member
[MENTION=84120]nevada[/MENTION]
In regards to the marriage thing, it's being used to discriminate against a subset of human beings and to differentiate them in such a way that they are not treated equally; I think the only thing the government can do in that case (which is what they have done) is to point out officially that it is the constitutional right of any male or female human being under the American flag to marry equally among other human beings. They are not doing anything more that clarifying to the rest of the people that this subset of human beings is within their constitutional rights to legally bond under a marriage license like any other human being under the American Constitution. So I don't see an issue there, for a state to say otherwise is to deny them a basic human right on a legal level (because marriage is being recognized in this case on it's legal merits not it's potential religious ones) and thus infringe on their constitutional right. Now if the Federal or State Government was ruling that the churches MUST allow marriages to be performed by their certain religious venues regardless of what they may believe and/or choose, that infringes on separation of Church and State. The Federal and State Government can rule to the legal standing/clarity of an individual's right to be married under a marriage license issued by the government. But the Government cannot force a Church to recognize that marriage if it is against their belief (at least unless it infringes on the legality of the issued marriage license.) Basically what I am getting at is that the Federal Government did their job and reminded everyone that under the Constitution we are granted individual rights and equality, so legally gays are just as entitled to a legal marriage license as any other human being under the American Flag. Now whether or not the churches and individual people want to recognize/acknowledge that is up to them, they have the fully constitutional right to voice their opinions and not agree with the ruling on a religious, personal, and intellectual level and can do what they like within their church wall; but from a legal standpoint they can get married regardless of what their god may say (and to be honest if one of the many interpretations of "God" does in fact exist, it is in His/Her/Its Higher Court that such a judgement will be made; not for us mortals to decide.)
~
In regards to the Confederate Flag, it has been flown mainly as a standing reminder of the South's attempt to secede from the US over the main idea that Slavery is constitutionally acceptable. Regardless of how many people try to claim otherwise, it has been more often than not used as a symbol of identification towards the belief that some people are not as equal as others. It has been adopted outside of the US as a "back-up" symbol of Racism where the Nazi Flag is outlawed and it was not flown on an official building in the south concurrently since the fall of the Confederacy. In fact it was coincidentally flown on state buildings again around the time of the first Civil Rights movement in the US (presumed by many to be an unspoken statement against Black Rights at the time.)
Does this bother me? Somewhat yes, I mean it is a symbol born of hate, ignorance, and defiance; flown to show belief that Humans are not created equal (during and after the Civil War.) Regardless of what people may white wash it these days, it remains an iconic symbol of Racism much in the way the Swastika has become blemished by the Third Reich. But under the 1st Amendment US citizens are allowed to fly whatever damn flag they please and express whatever viewpoints they want. But a US Government Building? No, it does not have any right or standing to fly a Non-US Government approved Flag; nor should it be flying a symbol that at its very core is a flag that represents an attempt to divide this country and dissolve the American Government. So in summary, people are allowed to think and express whatever the hell they want under the 1st Amendment; a US Government Building or state government has no business flying such a symbol on their premises.
~
I'm not entirely thrilled with the way the ACA is being handled and while Universal Healthcare is a nice idea; time and time again it has been proven that trying to scale it up larger than a County or even State level results in severe compromises between Quality and Quantity of Care. I recently came back from Sweden where their population density is far less than the US and their Socialist system has quite a few benefits; but most everyone in that country agrees that unless you are dying the quality of care varies because of difficulties in resource management at that macro scale. Unfortunately our previous healthcare system was just as corrupt and broken as our financial system, criminal justice system, and much of anything else in this country. Hopefully in the near future the ACA can be better revised and modified to function better (doubtful though as no country has been able to get Universal Healthcare to work properly as of this post.)
I do agree with your comment that no one should ever be forced to purchase a product ever, but that's just not the American Way. We are forced to pay for products all the time, a Tax for example can be constituted as paying for a product. In the case of taxation, that money is charged for partaking in the "Product" that is being a US Citizen; failure to pay for this "Product" can result in a few consequences that could be considered "termination of subscription services" if you will. But I do agree with you that the ACA is just not as great as it is cracked up to be and that as Free Americans we should not be forced to pay for a product (though unfortunately even excluding the ACA we are forced by the Government to buy a lot of products.)
~
So basically I really only disagree with your interpretation of the Government's role in clarifying/determining the legality same-sex marriage as it is applied to a government issued marriage license; I think too many people try to forget or wash over the fact that Marriage is no longer solely a religious contract, it is and has been a legal contract issued, upheld, and enforced by the US Government regardless of what the Church says for quite sometime now. I still believe the Church has the right to think what they want and to exclude whoever they want based on their beliefs; but they do not have the right to deny, ignore, or invalidate any couple with a legal Government issued Marriage License (religious, moral, and personal beliefs do not factor in such a decision at all.)
In regards to the marriage thing, it's being used to discriminate against a subset of human beings and to differentiate them in such a way that they are not treated equally; I think the only thing the government can do in that case (which is what they have done) is to point out officially that it is the constitutional right of any male or female human being under the American flag to marry equally among other human beings. They are not doing anything more that clarifying to the rest of the people that this subset of human beings is within their constitutional rights to legally bond under a marriage license like any other human being under the American Constitution. So I don't see an issue there, for a state to say otherwise is to deny them a basic human right on a legal level (because marriage is being recognized in this case on it's legal merits not it's potential religious ones) and thus infringe on their constitutional right. Now if the Federal or State Government was ruling that the churches MUST allow marriages to be performed by their certain religious venues regardless of what they may believe and/or choose, that infringes on separation of Church and State. The Federal and State Government can rule to the legal standing/clarity of an individual's right to be married under a marriage license issued by the government. But the Government cannot force a Church to recognize that marriage if it is against their belief (at least unless it infringes on the legality of the issued marriage license.) Basically what I am getting at is that the Federal Government did their job and reminded everyone that under the Constitution we are granted individual rights and equality, so legally gays are just as entitled to a legal marriage license as any other human being under the American Flag. Now whether or not the churches and individual people want to recognize/acknowledge that is up to them, they have the fully constitutional right to voice their opinions and not agree with the ruling on a religious, personal, and intellectual level and can do what they like within their church wall; but from a legal standpoint they can get married regardless of what their god may say (and to be honest if one of the many interpretations of "God" does in fact exist, it is in His/Her/Its Higher Court that such a judgement will be made; not for us mortals to decide.)
~
In regards to the Confederate Flag, it has been flown mainly as a standing reminder of the South's attempt to secede from the US over the main idea that Slavery is constitutionally acceptable. Regardless of how many people try to claim otherwise, it has been more often than not used as a symbol of identification towards the belief that some people are not as equal as others. It has been adopted outside of the US as a "back-up" symbol of Racism where the Nazi Flag is outlawed and it was not flown on an official building in the south concurrently since the fall of the Confederacy. In fact it was coincidentally flown on state buildings again around the time of the first Civil Rights movement in the US (presumed by many to be an unspoken statement against Black Rights at the time.)
Does this bother me? Somewhat yes, I mean it is a symbol born of hate, ignorance, and defiance; flown to show belief that Humans are not created equal (during and after the Civil War.) Regardless of what people may white wash it these days, it remains an iconic symbol of Racism much in the way the Swastika has become blemished by the Third Reich. But under the 1st Amendment US citizens are allowed to fly whatever damn flag they please and express whatever viewpoints they want. But a US Government Building? No, it does not have any right or standing to fly a Non-US Government approved Flag; nor should it be flying a symbol that at its very core is a flag that represents an attempt to divide this country and dissolve the American Government. So in summary, people are allowed to think and express whatever the hell they want under the 1st Amendment; a US Government Building or state government has no business flying such a symbol on their premises.
~
I'm not entirely thrilled with the way the ACA is being handled and while Universal Healthcare is a nice idea; time and time again it has been proven that trying to scale it up larger than a County or even State level results in severe compromises between Quality and Quantity of Care. I recently came back from Sweden where their population density is far less than the US and their Socialist system has quite a few benefits; but most everyone in that country agrees that unless you are dying the quality of care varies because of difficulties in resource management at that macro scale. Unfortunately our previous healthcare system was just as corrupt and broken as our financial system, criminal justice system, and much of anything else in this country. Hopefully in the near future the ACA can be better revised and modified to function better (doubtful though as no country has been able to get Universal Healthcare to work properly as of this post.)
I do agree with your comment that no one should ever be forced to purchase a product ever, but that's just not the American Way. We are forced to pay for products all the time, a Tax for example can be constituted as paying for a product. In the case of taxation, that money is charged for partaking in the "Product" that is being a US Citizen; failure to pay for this "Product" can result in a few consequences that could be considered "termination of subscription services" if you will. But I do agree with you that the ACA is just not as great as it is cracked up to be and that as Free Americans we should not be forced to pay for a product (though unfortunately even excluding the ACA we are forced by the Government to buy a lot of products.)
~
So basically I really only disagree with your interpretation of the Government's role in clarifying/determining the legality same-sex marriage as it is applied to a government issued marriage license; I think too many people try to forget or wash over the fact that Marriage is no longer solely a religious contract, it is and has been a legal contract issued, upheld, and enforced by the US Government regardless of what the Church says for quite sometime now. I still believe the Church has the right to think what they want and to exclude whoever they want based on their beliefs; but they do not have the right to deny, ignore, or invalidate any couple with a legal Government issued Marriage License (religious, moral, and personal beliefs do not factor in such a decision at all.)
Last edited:
Quatre Coureur
New member
All this crap going on about flags and marriage is just a diversion from something that is actually going to hurt us. Obama just got fast tracked(no review)to pass the TradePacificPlan(TPP). He made a back room deal with Boehner(R) and McConnel(R) to get around his own party. If the Dems AND the TEA party were dead set against it, u know its bad. This will be the final nail in the coffin for the blue collar worker. He says its to make us "better able to compete in the global market". You know how? By making our wages as shitty as the 3rd worlds. Making US corps. adhere to impossible EPA standards while giving china and India a pass. There's a whole bunch more bs attached to it too. As they like to say, "you'll just have to pass it to find out what's in it". Then it'll be too late. Where's Brian SD42 when we need him! :evil:
BlackWorksInc
New member
That's actually a good point, apparently it says nothing about marriage in any shape or form. So I would have to say that my first paragraph above should be framed in the sense of the Federal Government clarifying/determining the equality side of the argument and not the marriage side of the argument (sorta leaning that way when I wrote it; but was under the impression marriage was explained in the constitution, that was my fault for not fact checking that.) Though in the end it ends up at the same point as it is a fundamental equality argument in the sense of states/government discriminating against a subset of people.
KidVermicious
New member
All right, as long as we're going there, I'll jump back into the ring. I think the gov't being involved in marriage is silly in the first place, and the SC should have said "fukkit, we're out, do what you want".
You wanna live with somebody else, same or opposite sex? Great. Want to be in a romantic partership with that person? Awesome. Wanna have sex with them, have and/or adopt children, be a family? More power to ya. Wanna go to your local preferred clergyperson and get your relationship recognized by that church? Whatever floats your boat. Want to get with a lawyer and have a civil contract drawn up laying out who gets what and what happens to the kids in case you break up or one of you dies or whatever? Fantastic idea.
Why on earth anyone thinks the gov't should have anything to say about any of that is beyond me. There should be no relation to your taxes, your insurance rates, your credit score (lol), none of it. Marriage was originally a religious ceremony anyway, the gov't should have fukkall to do with it. Get them out of the marriage business and suddenly who gets to marry who is entirely between two people who love eachother and their clergy-dude. No hand-wringing necessary. "Legalized" same sex marriage, wtf? There should never have been a law regarding ANY type of marriage in the first place.
You wanna live with somebody else, same or opposite sex? Great. Want to be in a romantic partership with that person? Awesome. Wanna have sex with them, have and/or adopt children, be a family? More power to ya. Wanna go to your local preferred clergyperson and get your relationship recognized by that church? Whatever floats your boat. Want to get with a lawyer and have a civil contract drawn up laying out who gets what and what happens to the kids in case you break up or one of you dies or whatever? Fantastic idea.
Why on earth anyone thinks the gov't should have anything to say about any of that is beyond me. There should be no relation to your taxes, your insurance rates, your credit score (lol), none of it. Marriage was originally a religious ceremony anyway, the gov't should have fukkall to do with it. Get them out of the marriage business and suddenly who gets to marry who is entirely between two people who love eachother and their clergy-dude. No hand-wringing necessary. "Legalized" same sex marriage, wtf? There should never have been a law regarding ANY type of marriage in the first place.
RandyDaytona
New member
Chances are, the same discussion about the federal government minding its own business was being had when schools were integrated. The world didn't end then and it probably won't, now.
I think the religious/spiritual aspect of marriage should be determined by the people who enter into it - more or less, depending on the individuals' preferences and/or beliefs.
But like it or not, society has attached tangible benefits to the whole concept of "marriage." And denying such ubiquitous benefits to someone for a reason as silly as sexual preference (among consenting adults, without hurting anyone, and which is legal) is not what our country is (supposed to be) about.
As far as confederate flags....People should be free to display whatever symbol they choose, but anything that offends so many people on such a high level should have no place in a government by, of and for the people (everyone), nor should it ever be used in any official capacity by an entity purporting to represent all of us.
Personally, I could care less if I ever see a confederate flag again in my lifetime. To me, it speaks to discrimination, ignorance, and a holding-on to backwards ideas that some people still feel the need to remind us all of. Get over it, already - you treated people like cattle, fought for the right to do so, and lost. Time to move on.
I think the religious/spiritual aspect of marriage should be determined by the people who enter into it - more or less, depending on the individuals' preferences and/or beliefs.
But like it or not, society has attached tangible benefits to the whole concept of "marriage." And denying such ubiquitous benefits to someone for a reason as silly as sexual preference (among consenting adults, without hurting anyone, and which is legal) is not what our country is (supposed to be) about.
As far as confederate flags....People should be free to display whatever symbol they choose, but anything that offends so many people on such a high level should have no place in a government by, of and for the people (everyone), nor should it ever be used in any official capacity by an entity purporting to represent all of us.
Personally, I could care less if I ever see a confederate flag again in my lifetime. To me, it speaks to discrimination, ignorance, and a holding-on to backwards ideas that some people still feel the need to remind us all of. Get over it, already - you treated people like cattle, fought for the right to do so, and lost. Time to move on.
Last edited:
85straight
New member
100% agree with you here. All this BS is just a big distraction as to what is actually going to effect everyones daily life (nothing new though, im not even surprised unfortunately). As long as the masses play into this s*** the government will continue to do as they please....
All in all i feel its pretty disheartning
85straight
New member
Really?! This may be one of the most ignorant comments ive ever seen on this board
