Plan B Forum

On the upside, we just got enough Republican Senators to advance the Respect for Marriage Act. Yay!

Yes, that's good.

Please expand your post above Gen'l Why would passage of the 'Respect For Marriage act' be good in your opinion? It does conflict with the biblical instruction in Leviticus 20:13.

snailgate

Fair enough, snail. First, I don't believe that the laws of the USA or anywhere else should be lifted out of Leviticus (or any other religious text).

Society does what society wants. Divorce exists and God hates divorce. The fabulously wealthy have passed and enabled laws that are organized theft. Politicians like Trump have enshrined dishonesty, sexual harassment, and inhumanity to humans as normal business. One could go on (look out, I might).

I do not like that civil unions between homosexuals should be called "marriage" but that ship sailed. They wanted the word and they captured it; good tactics. I respect the law, even laws that are not in accord with my moral beliefs based on the word of God. As long as no one is forced to personally embrace laws that are against conscience and faith, then such laws are to be respected. All people deserve respect - even Arsenal supporters. I have trouble with that one.

I also assume that the religious exemption proposal has been accepted

"As proposed, the amendment would ensure that all religious liberty and conscience protections under the Constitution and federal laws, including the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, would remain in place and would ensure that the Respect for Marriage Act was not used to “diminish or repeal” such protections

But maybe my understanding is not correct.

The purpose of the church is to teach - not to establish law. If this leaves me in a quandary every now and then (such as on the issue of abortion), it's hardly surprising. None of us have a perfect understanding, even of imperfection.

I hope that sufficiently answers your question

Yes, thank you

snailgate

Much better would be to simply remove "marriage" from any and all laws. Any two consenting adults should be free to join in a civil union. If they want to have a church bless it...that's their business.

Jarlaxle wrote: ↑

Fri Nov 18, 2022 4:28 am

Much better would be to simply remove "marriage" from any and all laws. Any two consenting adults should be free to join in a civil union. If they want to have a church bless it...that's their business.

Yes, and/or replace "marriage" with the term "wedlock" for everyone because it is a legal lockup.

Scooter wrote: ↑

Wed Nov 16, 2022 7:52 pm

Given what’s already been said in just a few days, and the failure of the vast majority of the gop to show basic decency by attending Pelosi’s speech yesterday, I suspect the next two years to be very ugly indeed.

Oh well it was nice to spend a week or so in relief and with small hopes that Democrats would keep the house.

Pretty pissed at NY and CA for whatever happened there to lose so many seats.

NY was about trying too hard to gerrymander, and getting the map tossed in court. If they hadn't been so greedy, they might have gotten a map that kept them even, or even gained a couple, instead of losing 3.

Yes, they may have managed to mess up the district maps in California and New York. They should have carefully studied the process in Ohio. After more than one ballot issue to reform the process in Ohio and each failed by a small margin. The ballot wording was skillfully crafted to look like a reform that would give a balanced small group the power to draw the map. But the details always are more important. Ohio ended up with a legally blessed mapping process that puts it in the hands of the most politically biased and motivated group I can imagine. Due to federal regulation, there is a small measure of fairness in that this district map is only for states offices, not US Congress Representative.

Now that 'original intent' judicial interpretation of the constitution has restored to wife beaters and other practitioners of domestic violence the right to carry a gun, because in the time of the founding fathers, such male behavior was not regarded as a crime--domestic behavior was not a matter for legal attention. I am more fascinated by the 18th amendment which removed the selection of senators beyond original intent. Senators are to be elected by the PEOPLE, not citizens. I wonder why original intent is not applied to the meaning of cruel and unusual punishment. Maybe Delaware could re-erect its whipping post.

I think we need a restatement of the Jeffersonian principle that the earth belongs in usufruct to the living, the dead having neither rights nor powers over it.

snailgate

Looks like Michigans redistricting worked out well. Both State houses flipped slightly blue for the first time in 20 years of being deep red.

Yeah, I'm surprised the pundits aren't making more of a deal about that, it's pretty huge.

I’ve heard it mentioned a few times. State houses are probably considered “too local” for national / world feeds.