all awful. endless march of suck.
Reply With Quote
Site Information
About Us
- RonPaulForums.com is an independent grassroots outfit not officially connected to Ron Paul but dedicated to his mission. For more information see our Mission Statement.
all awful. endless march of suck.
You're wrong.Originally Posted by RabbitMan
Nuh uh.
He should just be honest and say what he believes, whatever that is.
He's already said he thinks it should be left up to the states. Why would his opinion be different today than it was yesterday?
Last edited by JJ2; 06-26-2015 at 07:55 PM.
I agree with Justin Amash:
He hasn't said whether he supports doing anything about it, or whether he just views it as now being a settled issue and wants to move on from it. (Or wants to move in the direction of getting the government out of marriage)
THIS guy is the BEST that we have, IMHO.I agree with Justin Amash:
Am I wrong to say the only legal thing to be done about this ruling would either be a constitutional amendment or get a new lawsuit to be heard by the supreme court?
I like Justin Amash in many areas, but can anyone see his contradiction in that post?I agree with Justin Amash:
"Then David said to the Philistine, 'You come to me with a sword, a spear, and a javelin, but I come to you in the name of Yahweh of hosts, the God of the battle lines of Israel, Whom you have reproached.'" - 1 Samuel 17:45
"May future generations look back on our work and say that these were men and women who, in moment of great crisis, stood up to their politicians, the opinion-makers, and the Establishment, and saved their country." - Dr. Ron Paul
Yeah. Ted Cruz is pushing a Constitutional Amendment to send the issue back to the states to decide. That's the correct position in theory, but such an amendment would have a 0% chance of passing. So my guess is that Rand won't support pushing such an amendment.
If the general sentiment of this forum is to equate homosexuality with the literal destruction of society, I'm gonna jet.
There's a few of us that aren't like that. Don't make us even fewer.
You're dealing with an entity that defines "person"...that they define "marriage" is somewhat anti-climactic.
All modern revolutions have ended in a reinforcement of the power of the State.
-Albert Camus
Maybe this: The part where he says, "...but rather that it is defined by personal faith".
It's just slightly wrong.
Nah.
All he's saying is that the Supremes have authority even when they are wrong.
In other words:
All modern revolutions have ended in a reinforcement of the power of the State.
-Albert Camus
I don't agree. Pedophiles, polygamists, and people who engage in beastiality are now being discriminated against. Where are their equal rights?I agree with Justin Amash:
Justin Amash is wrong. Statism is wrong. It always leads to destruction.
Of course. That was horrible.
Granted I haven't read all the posts on this thread, but I hope they aren't convincing you of that. Even those who are all freaked out by this decision, I think (I hope), are doing so because they think this is a federal overreach. Sure, you will always have some... But the majority of people who believe in liberty think that applies to all individuals regardless of ANY characteristic.
"And now that the legislators and do-gooders have so futilely inflicted so many systems upon society, may they finally end where they should have begun: May they reject all systems, and try liberty; for liberty is an acknowledgment of faith in God and His works." - Bastiat
"It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere." - Voltaire
No. I do not. Keep government out of personal affairs and personal affairs out of government. If you combine the two then you have contention that you may feel slighted over. As you do now. As gays did before this ruling.
It's part of the destruction of a society. Usually immorality in one area is related to immorality in another area. The immorality of homosexuality is related to the immorality of the debasement of currency. Both are rejections of God.
From what I've read here, Justin Amash and also the atheists of the board don't care about federal overreach.
You missed what it is he is saying. Read it again.
YOU are one that wanted government to be involved with marriage. Don't be miffed if the slop from the pig trough washes over you when you muck in the sty.
That was his point. You're only mad that statism is no longer discriminating against gays. You weren't this outraged over marriage licensing until now. Government approved hetero marriages didn't make you say this:
Our country? Sounds like you are the statist.
Last edited by fr33; 06-26-2015 at 08:45 PM.
The last sentence of his post says exactly what I said. Any place where government asserts it's authority, it may not violate the equal rights of anyone.
Pedophiles, polygamists, and animal lovers are now being discriminated against by the law. How can you not see that?
Not only that, what is "equal rights"? What a bunch of progressive statism that is! Unbelievable....
Last edited by Sola_Fide; 06-26-2015 at 08:49 PM.
That is an excellent point, too, Sola.
Notice that in Amash's first sentence, he says, "Throughout history, different cultures have defined marriage according to their own customs and practices." Then he condemns government involvement in marriage for the past several years in the following paragraphs. But what he seems to miss is that, given his assertion that marriage can be defined based on a culture's customs and practices, there can nothing wrong with what the SCOTUS did in its ruling because it was based on the customs and practices of today's politically-progressive culture. So, Amash has contradicted himself.
"Then David said to the Philistine, 'You come to me with a sword, a spear, and a javelin, but I come to you in the name of Yahweh of hosts, the God of the battle lines of Israel, Whom you have reproached.'" - 1 Samuel 17:45
"May future generations look back on our work and say that these were men and women who, in moment of great crisis, stood up to their politicians, the opinion-makers, and the Establishment, and saved their country." - Dr. Ron Paul
No you're wrong. I've always been consistent against licensure of EVERY kind, including marriage. It blows me away that atheists lose all of their freedom principles on this and other things.
Atheists cannot be libertarians. You all are showing it. Keep fighting for those "equal rights". Unreal...
You understand that sex with something that can't give consent is different than entering into a contract with something that can't enter a contract?
All modern revolutions have ended in a reinforcement of the power of the State.
-Albert Camus
Sorry you can't see it. Sorry that government is not in your corner anymore. Now maybe you will wake the hell up. You won't though. You'll just be butt-hurt and excoriate someone for giving you the flat, straight out, honest truth.
And otherone addressed your other utter non-sense. Now polygamists? Yep, things are gonna change with regard to that under this ruling. Congrats for keeping marriage a state sanctified union instead of fighting to get the state out of it. I'm laughing my ass off at you silly Christians that put your faith in the government.
Last edited by phill4paul; 06-26-2015 at 08:54 PM.
Posting Permissions
Connect With Us