Examples of GOP Leadership

topcat

topcat

Well-Known Member
cannabineer

cannabineer

Ursus marijanus
topcat said:
The government should have no role in marriage (or divorce) beyond keeping a register of unions for legal purposes. Government has no authority to issue a license to marry (or get involved with divorce). Change the term to registration, or contract.
Click to expand...
Part of the problem is that the covenant marriage movement calls it a contract. Some contracts are hard to terminate.
 
D

doughper

Well-Known Member
Edit Reason: "...to say i wasn't a Yankee, i was a Westerner."

Bagginski said:
I hope no-one else remembers the ‘whites & coloreds’ era…it was bad, bad times
Click to expand...
I'm from the western USA. I went to the south at age 19, in 1968. They called me "yankee"
down there. I had to say i wasn't a Yankee, i was a Westerner. I was in Miami Beach one
time and met a black dude in a bar, we had a beer,cops came in hustled him out. I protested,
and they said "We don't like blacks and whites mixing together!" I was totally unfamiliar with
that in human nature other than from TV news coverage of civil rights movement. Want more?
I got some stories from Georgia, too. Even worse.
 
Last edited:
CANON_Grow

CANON_Grow

Well-Known Member
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
This issue will come before them again, quite possibly at a time when a Republican administration can decide not to fight for our rights. They could and should have ruled that the antiabortionist's case had no merit but did not do that.

Takeaways from Supreme Court ruling: Abortion pill still available but opponents say fight not over

apnews.com

Takeaways from Supreme Court ruling: Abortion pill still available but opponents say fight not over

The Supreme Court unanimously upheld access to a drug used in the majority of U.S. abortions, though abortion opponents say the ruling won’t be the last word in the fight over mifepristone.
apnews.com apnews.com

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court unanimously upheld access to a drug used in the majority of U.S. abortions on Thursday, though abortion opponents say the ruling won’t be the last word in the fight over mifepristone.
The narrow decision came two years after the high court overturned the nationwide right to abortion. Rather than fully dive into the issue, the high court found that anti-abortion doctors lacked the legal right to sue.
That could leave an opening for anti-abortion states or other opponents to keep up the fight.

What does this mean politically?
Thursday’s ruling sidesteps immediate seismic political effects, but the issue will still be center stage this election year.
Democrats said the Supreme Court made the right call on abortion medication, but warned that the ruling wouldn’t end GOP threats to abortion rights. Vice President Kamala Harris said former President Donald Trump’s allies would still try to halt access to medication abortion and enact further restrictions, including a nationwide ban.
 
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
cannabineer said:
Yup, and the fine print in covenant marriage is kinda strict.
Click to expand...
The logic goes like this: Because some people are harmed by the choice they make, we will remove that choice from everybody. This is the argument the religious right make regarding abortion, marijuana, IVF, literature, porn and so forth.

So, no. The idea of banning covenant marriage because it's a stupid idea that will cause harm to some people (which it is). I'd say, no to that. I would strongly lobby against it if one of my sons decided to marry in that manner but would not say no if that was their choice. The situations in life vary so much from person to person that the state cannot enact proactive behaviorally restrictive laws that are fair to everybody. Empowering people to make their own choices is the better path and causes less harm.
 
cannabineer

cannabineer

Ursus marijanus
Fogdog said:
The logic goes like this: Because some people are harmed by the choice they make, we will remove that choice from everybody. This is the argument the religious right make regarding abortion, marijuana, IVF, literature, porn and so forth.

So, no. The idea of banning covenant marriage because it's a stupid idea that will cause harm to some people (which it is). I'd say, no to that. I would strongly lobby against it if one of my sons decided to marry in that manner but would not say no if that was their choice. The situations in life vary so much from person to person that the state cannot enact proactive behaviorally restrictive laws that are fair to everybody. Empowering people to make their own choices is the better path and causes less harm.
Click to expand...
As long as covenant marriage is one of >1 options, yes. I worry that the objective is described by the Afghani situation.
 
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
cannabineer said:
As long as covenant marriage is one of >1 options, yes. I worry that the objective is described by the Afghani situation.
Click to expand...
I don't see where in my reply to you that I was advocating what you say? In any case, if "contract/covenant marriage" as defined by the Christian Nationalists became the only choice allowable under a state's law, then it wouldn't be called covenant marriage, it would just be called marriage.

Christian nationalism is vile on many fronts, not just this bizarre attack on no fault divorce. If they win big in the upcoming election, the retrograde package of legislation, court appointments, court rulings that come with them, and the gulags needed to break resistance to all of that, will end this country as we know it. US 2.0 will look more like Iran or perhaps Imperial Russia than Afghanistan but I think by then 1950's era divorce laws will be a concern but not our only concern.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top