Gay marriage opponents' strategy uncertain in 2015

[King]

Sorry TJ and CCSF, but you two are actually more like the Pharisees, who felt their religious law was being threatened and used Roman Law to persecute the reformers--Jesus and his disciples.

[King]

Sorry TJ and CCSF, but you two are actually more like the Pharisees, who felt their religious law was being threatened and used Roman Law to persecute the reformers--Jesus and his disciples.

That problem with that interpretation is that Jesus is merely a reformer and that the Pharisees were merely trying follow the law. Neither is the case. The Pharisees were abusing law in a number of ways and Jesus was the completion of the Jewish law. He was not merely a political activist trying to change laws and his main reference to the government was to tell people to render unto Cesar what is Cesar's. The idea of Christians as political force wasn't really a thing in those days. Also the main point of my original post in this thread was that we should stop worrying about the laws.

But that's not what the Pharisees thought. They themselves thought their way of life was being persecuted by radicals attempting to corrupt the word of God. To them, Jesus was a political activist trying to change the laws of Jerusalem.

Calling the Pharisees an abuser of laws and yourself not one is pure arrogance. There is a laundry list of biblical law both Old and New Testament that most American Protestants and Catholics do not follow, including yourself.  If a biblical scholar did an audit of your life/your church as the historians have done of the Pharisees, they would find you equally guilty of corruption.

It's easy to say you are like Jesus, a martyr. From the first person perspective of our own lives, I would say all of us feel like we are the martyr in our daily lives.  It's rarely true.

Whether or not one is truly a martyr is for the outside observer to decide.  Saints do not anoint themselves saints. I will say you are not a martyr. You are a Pharisee.

[King]

We don't need public policy on creating an environment for procreation. There are people living in piles of trash in third world countries having children. It's one of the few things humans don't have to be coaxed into doing.

[King]

Maybe spend less time worrying about why people choose the avatars they have and more time focusing on your flawed arguments on this topic...?

I happen to believe that avatars should mean something. At least to the point where they don't indicate the complete opposite of your actual political positions. Enough said.

you are way too dependant on identity politics to be an independent.  pls resign

[King]

Lolfric

[King]

I listened to the oral arguments for Obergefell v. Hodges today. Very interesting.

The lawyer for Question 1 pretty much does Wulfric's procreation argument. Ginsberg slammed it easily by noting that it would be unconstitutional for states to revoke marriage licenses for postmenopausal women.

Question 2 is hilarious, however. Donald Whalen for the State of Tennessee completely bungles his case. He declares that there is no constitutional right for Tennessee to recognize even heterosexual marriages from other states, and that there is precedent in the court for this. The case he brings up Breyer rips up from memory as irrelevant. Even Scalia is shocked that Whalen would try to use that and ends up nudging him to talk about Article IV of the Constitution instead of attempting to draw up precedence, to which Whalen responds "I'm not sure I understand what you are saying, your honor."

[King]

Having listened to the oral arguments, Kennedy's comments about the reluctance to say the court knowing better is a bit surprising and encouraging, but I am of the belief that they will indeed impose SSM

Kennedy left a slight door open on question 1. However, question 2 sounds like Kennedy and Roberts both may rule that all states have to recognize same sex marriage if legalized in another state. Meaning it will be de facto legal everywhere as long as the ceremonies are held in legal states.

[King]

Yea, it's a pretty obvious win for SSM on Question 2, which kills the fight anyway. If states have to acknowledge SSMs performed elsewhere, what these states are trying to prevent is now over. There will be recognized same sex married couples living in Tennessee from now on, whether than license was issued in Tennessee or not.

Question 1 would just make it simpler by forcing Tennessee to change the law on the books as well.

[King]

Wulfric, do you support repeal of the 1st Amendment?

"While I do not support the repeal of the 1st Amendment, I would not be opposed to it being repealed by 2/3rds majority of Congress and ratification of the states."

[King]

Classic Naso