ADVERTISEMENT

Looks like we will get a House vote on Same-sex Marriage, Contraception and Abortion

Makes more sense. This kind of follows my poison pill logic earlier in the thread. Yea, gay marriage should be legal, but forcing a religious organization to perform one should not be. Everyone on this board should agree with that. And if the latter protection was in jeopardy, I can see why some people voted against the bill. I can't imagine why the religious protection would not have been added though... Perhaps our friends in the senate can amend the bill, make it inclusive of all factors, pass it and send it back to the house for a clean vote.
tax subsidy stops when they get to pick and choose who they serve
 
It's 2022. It's time to move the F on from gay marriage. I hope Cruz doesn't go down that path.

Did you know: The last executive branch to vocalize that marriage is between 1 man and 1 woman was the first term of Obama/Biden.
Yep. And the pubs still hated him for being a muslim. Look the greater good is at stake here and we should not bring up old crap to derail it.
 
There was marriage long before there was a United States. Hence the reason I said under our Constitution, we must recognize a union between two people. However, in Biblical terms and pretty much throughout all of history, it is a union between a man and a woman. And saying that isn't meant to denigrate anyone else's view on this matter.
So have your super special Bible marriage in your church and leave the government out of it which is clearly spelled our in our constitution.
 
So have your super special Bible marriage in your church and leave the government out of it which is clearly spelled our in our constitution.

Be happy to. But that isn't clear in the bill that just passed. And your condescension is noted as per usual. You might have noticed quite a few religious denominations being torn asunder over this issue because the leftists want it all. The less choice and the less freedom the better for those folks.
 
Be happy to. But that isn't clear in the bill that just passed. And your condescension is noted as per usual. You might have noticed quite a few religious denominations being torn asunder over this issue because the leftists want it all. The less choice and the less freedom the better for those folks.
Yah sure man

Republicans want to tell you what books you can read, what meds you can take, what words you can say, what history you can learn, what you can do with your uterus, who you can love… but tell me more about how the Dems are “coming for your freedoms”
 
Yah sure man

Republicans want to tell you what books you can read, what meds you can take, what words you can say, what history you can learn, what you can do with your uterus, who you can love… but tell me more about how the Dems are “coming for your freedoms”




Your last post is rather remarkable. You have such a one-sided way of seeing things. Probably because you only read one side. It makes you rather ignorant. The one about words is pretty rich. It is unbelievable that you actually think that. It's also ironic to me how you refer to what someone can do with their uterus rather than what someone can do with an unborn baby. Pretty barbaric stuff there bud.
 
Last edited:



Your last post is rather remarkable. You have such a one-sided way of seeing things. Probably because you only read one side. It makes you rather ignorant. The one about words is pretty rich. It is unbelievable that you actually think that. It's also ironic to me how you refer to what someone can do with their uterus rather than what someone can do with an unborn baby. Pretty barbaric stuff there bud.
The books weren't banned, they were removed from "required" reading lists but still available in the library. A wholly different approach from banning math books because they teach CRT. SMFH

"After parent complaints about the use of racist epithets in To Kill a Mockingbird; Adventures of Huckleberry Finn; The Cay; Of Mice and Men; and Roll of Thunder, Hear My Cry, the Burbank (CA) Unified School District superintendent issued a statement removing the books from the district’s required reading lists for its English curriculum and banned the use of the N-word in all school classes. The books will be allowed in classroom libraries, but no student can be required to read them. At a board meeting, the superintendent stated, “This is not about censorship, this is about righting the wrongs of the past.”

 




I could go on and on with this but I just wanted to make the point. :) I haven't even started with social media censorship, etc. that Democrats quietly push and support but only from one side.
 
Last edited:
"After parent complaints about the use of racist epithets in To Kill a Mockingbird; Adventures of Huckleberry Finn; The Cay; Of Mice and Men; and Roll of Thunder, Hear My Cry, the Burbank (CA) Unified School District superintendent issued a statement removing the books from the district’s required reading lists for its English curriculum and banned the use of the N-word in all school classes. The books will be allowed in classroom libraries, but no student can be required to read them. At a board meeting, the superintendent stated, “This is not about censorship, this is about righting the wrongs of the past.”

You can't teach the complexity and depravity of our history of race relations without the judicious use of the n-word. It's just that simple.

The removal of anything related to CRT is a step in a good direction. That's an anti-intellectual revolutionary concept that breeds more racism not less. Both sides don't have everything right and we do have the opportunity to choose what we're going to go forward with. The state of Florida has every right to make those choices. Actually, the state of California does too with respect to the books they seek to remove. My point is that it goes on with both sides. These days, people just aren't terribly bright so they'd rather get rid of things than have to explain and combat them with reason and logic. If you don't like it, stop marching in that parade because you do it all the time, every day on this board with our posts.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Chetsu

religious organizations should lose their tax exempt status

So you want to take away their tax exempt status over supporting something as fundamental as life? The vitriol by some folks here toward religion is really scary. Why don't you come to church with me and you can see reality? I'd love to meet you anyway.
 
So you want to take away their tax exempt status over supporting something as fundamental as life? The vitriol by some folks here toward religion is really scary. Why don't you come to church with me and you can see reality? I'd love to meet you anyway.
no, i think churches, and unions, should lose tax exempt status. there's no real reason for it, especially when they have the ability to throw millions of dollars towards political endeavors. sure this'll probably hurt the small rural churches, but it seems the big mega ones are swimming in cash
 
no, i think churches, and unions, should lose tax exempt status. there's no real reason for it, especially when they have the ability to throw millions of dollars towards political endeavors. sure this'll probably hurt the small rural churches, but it seems the big mega ones are swimming in cash

I would not be tremendously opposed to making some caveats to try and limit political action by churches. It would have to be very clearly defined and I don't know that abortion should fit there. I think advocating against the murder of unborn babies is pretty basic humanity type of stuff. That being said, most churches don't do that. All the cash they are swimming in (if they in fact are) is from donations by members. However, I fervently disagree with politics from the pulpit. It has no place there. The salvation offered by God is not politically dependent. I would never attend a church engaged in such things.

It also bears noting again that more aid, more service toward those in need, more disaster relief, more free counselling, more food for the hungry, more humanitarian assistance, etc. is done by Christian churches than any other non-governmental group in the world and more than most governments as well. That never seems to get talked about but hundreds of millions are served by the people through the love that comes to us through Jesus Christ.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Chetsu
I would not be tremendously opposed to making some caveats to try and limit political action by churches. It would have to be very clearly defined and I don't know that abortion should fit there. I think advocating against the murder of unborn babies is pretty basic humanity type of stuff. That being said, most churches don't do that. All the cash they are swimming in (if they in fact are) is from donations by members. However, I fervently disagree with politics from the pulpit. It has no place there. The salvation offered by God is not politically dependent. I would never attend a church engaged in such things.

It also bears noting again that more aid, more service toward those in need, more disaster relief, more free counselling, more food for the hungry, more humanitarian assistance, etc. is done by Christian churches than any other non-governmental group in the world and more than most governments as well. That never seems to get talked about but hundreds of millions are served by the people through the love that comes to us through Jesus Christ.
no argument from me on the good that comes from churches. my family is incredibly engaged with the church i grew up attending, and they (the church) do a tremendous service for those in need. and i'd probably also argue that the overwhelming majority (not data to support this but my gut thinks it's probably 95%+) run on a tight budget and don't donate any of their excess funds to political causes. however, my big gripe is more focused on televangelists, mega churches, and institutions like the above that choose to donate to certain political causes and skirt by on not having to pay any taxes.
 




I could go on and on with this but I just wanted to make the point. :) I haven't even started with social media censorship, etc. that Democrats quietly push and support but only from one side.
Again, a school district deciding to no longer require a book to be on a reading list or a publisher deciding not to print any more copies of a book is not the same as a governor banning math books over a fake culture war issue. The examples you provided don't describe banning books, got it?

Also pretty rich for you to preach how things should be taught honestly while fearmongering about a "theory" that isn't even taught except in graduate level studies. But even if it was taught in high school, are teenagers no longer allowed to discuss a theory for fear it would damage them? What a performative crock of shit the Right is peddling.

What is the Right so afraid of? Is it the fear that if their children find empathy with others they might become a Democrat? *Gasp! Like Tucker says, "just asking the question"
 








I can go on and on with this too. No, CRT in it's original form is not taught in K-12 schools. However, curriculum has been created that is based in CRT tenants and this is everywhere. Saying CRT isn't taught in schools is true and spectacularly dishonest all at once. So you can stand on your little data point against the avalanche of evidence that demonstrates the impact of CRT in public schools. It is literally everywhere! The 1619 project is an example. It's taught in thousands of schools. It isn't a subject for debate. It is factually inaccurate from it's origin through it's conclusions. Just in no way is it historically accurate.

The concept of equity is evil, false, impossible, divisive, destructive and it is not a path to progress. Creating an illusion there can be equity is just insane. We should strive for equality in every way possible but equity has been slipped in there and it is so corrosive to any hopes for progress as a society.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Chetsu








I can go on and on with this too. No, CRT in it's original form is not taught in K-12 schools. However, curriculum has been created that is based in CRT tenants and this is everywhere. Saying CRT isn't taught in schools is true and spectacularly dishonest all at once. So you can stand on your little data point against the avalanche of evidence that demonstrates the impact of CRT in public schools. It is literally everywhere! The 1619 project is an example. It's taught in thousands of schools. It isn't a subject for debate. It is factually inaccurate from it's origin through it's conclusions. Just in no way is it historically accurate.

The concept of equity is evil, false, impossible, divisive, destructive and it is not a path to progress. Creating an illusion there can be equity is just insane. We should strive for equality in every way possible but equity has been slipped in there and it is so corrosive to any hopes for progress as a society.
Oh look, someone used their google box to find some anecdotal examples of things that are rarely and infrequently taught, in hopes of convincing us that everybody is learning harmful lessons about black history that will scar them and make them feel guilty. This includes history as experienced by people other than Northern European white men. Oh the horror, we mustn't allow that to happen - it will harm the children! Only white history is true and pure enough for innocent ears, say the culture warriors on the Right! We must scrub the curriculum and remove all other perspectives or our country will be destroyed by wokeness!
 
no argument from me on the good that comes from churches. my family is incredibly engaged with the church i grew up attending, and they (the church) do a tremendous service for those in need. and i'd probably also argue that the overwhelming majority (not data to support this but my gut thinks it's probably 95%+) run on a tight budget and don't donate any of their excess funds to political causes. however, my big gripe is more focused on televangelists, mega churches, and institutions like the above that choose to donate to certain political causes and skirt by on not having to pay any taxes.
By mega church I agree, if you mean like Elevation and Newspring and that ilk, right on. It’s also interesting that those mega churches, the pastors usually turn up to be very corrupt (Newspring had an alcoholic preacher at some point in time, probably 7ish years ago, I was at Clemson when this occurred). Don’t get me wrong definitely all for preaching Gods word, and I admittedly have been to Newspring on several occasions when I was in college and they have great sermons, but I’m on board with you that the cash flow is ridiculous for those entities
 
  • Like
Reactions: WapPride


pretty gross article. sadly this will become all the more normal in backwoods southern states
 
  • Angry
Reactions: dpic73
It's 2022. It's time to move the F on from gay marriage. I hope Cruz doesn't go down that path.

Did you know: The last executive branch to vocalize that marriage is between 1 man and 1 woman was the first term of Obama/Biden.
But later on Obama retracted that statement.
 
Didn't care about it until it affected him.

your typical politician "come to jesus" moment. all that shit was laid out in the bill that he was supposed to have read before voting on it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dpic73
Ted Cruz did not say they should ban gay marriage. He said it was a bad decision, just like Roe. And he's right. If Republicans will speak plainly and not kowtow to the Left's false narratives, they'll do much better.
We will see. I get that argument for sure... I just don't believe it when it comes out of a lot of folk's mouths and that includes Ted Cruz. IF Cruz and company aren't lying their asses off, they will vote in favor of gay marriage and contraception. I'm not holding my breath and will frankly be STUNNED if he does. I would be willing to bet a small amount that he votes no.
 
It also passed by over a hundred votes in a house that is very narrowly divided. So what's your problem? There are a litany issues that Democrats will vote against which would be good for people. I guess you just can't take the win and instead want to make a political spectacle out of it.
I agree with this for sure. There's a pretty strong minority on both sides of the aisle that will vote no on any bill that comes from the opposite side, regardless of merit.
 
  • Like
Reactions: yoshi121374
Have you heard an explanation for the NO vote?
i finally received a response from Harris

Dear Mr. _________,

Thank you for taking the time to contact me with your thoughts regarding H.R. 8404, the Respect for Marriage Act. As a husband, father of six, and grandfather of 10, I recognize the important role that the institution of marriage plays in our livelihoods. I very much appreciate your interest and input on this issue.

As you may know, H.R. 8404 would provide statutory authority for same-sex and interracial marriages. Specifically, the bill would repeal and replace provisions that define, for federal purposes, “marriage” and “spouse” under the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) with provisions that recognize any marriage valid under state law. Additionally, the bill would prohibit states from failing to recognize a marriage from another state on the basis of sex, race, ethnicity, or national origin.

It should be noted that DOMA, which was supported by then-Senator Joe Biden and signed into law by Democratic President Bill Clinton, was found unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court in the U.S. v Windsor (2013) decision. Additionally, the Court affirmed the right to same-sex and interracial marriages in its decisions in Obergefell v. Hodges (2015) and Loving v. Virginia (1967). Same-sex and interracial marriage rights are already the law of the land, and there is no ongoing legal effort to curb these rights. So, the provisions within H.R. 8404 are entirely unnecessary. Instead of resolving pending issues, this bill is simply an effort by some in Congress to capitalize on misplaced fear among the public that same-sex and interracial marriage rights could be in jeopardy following the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Dobbs v. Jackson, which overturned the 1964 Roe v. Wade abortion decision. This comes despite the fact that the justices in the majority of the Dobbs decision emphatically declared that the ruling did not cast doubt on, or put into question, any other case’s precedents, including the Court’s decisions regarding same-sex and interracial marriage.

On July 18, 2022, H.R. 8404 was passed by the House of Representatives by a vote of 267-157, with my vote in opposition. It now heads to the Senate for possible consideration. Rest assured, I will keep your thoughts in mind as I continue to monitor this legislation.

I hope this information has been helpful. As Congress addresses the many challenges facing our nation, I hope you will continue to share your suggestions. To keep up with my work in Congress, visit my website at harris.house.gov and sign up to receive updates at harris.house.gov/contact/newsletter.


Sincerely,

SFuzY2gT9P7m1_PmsNVcMvFCCXP7jacJuD-HhGaIZ0zcbGE-OG06HK5KvErEbVBEJuxWTrTWUaZwDN8vowGNkpyhas50YzzyHLll-m7njTBiOg2bdWTCFr8hnZg=s0-d-e1-ft
 
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT