And attempts to use the Bible to back her play, which, as written, can get a bit squishy and would allow her to dissemble when pressed
And now abide faith, hope, love, these three; but the greatest of these is love. I Corinthians 13
Well, if she wants to really push Corinthians 13, then she should immediately give up all her wealth and do it with love
If I give all I possess to the poor and give over my body to hardship that I may boast, but do not have love, I gain nothing.
OK, a bit of a stretch.
The question of marriage equality is a great American debate. Many people, some with strong religious faith, believe that marriage can only exist between a man and a woman. Other people, many of whom also have strong religious faith, believe that our country should not limit the commitment of marriage to some, but rather all Americans, gay and straight should be allowed to fully participate in the most basic of family values.
I have come to the conclusion that our government should not limit the right to marry based on who you love. While churches should never be required to conduct marriages outside of their religious beliefs, neither should the government tell people who they have a right to marry.
Now, she does have a point: Government shouldn’t. It should be left up to the religious institutions. But, what of The People? What if The People vote to restrict marriage to being between a man and a woman? And what of McCaskill’s vote to deny religious institutions their 1st Amendment right to determine whether or not they will offer health insurance that provides contraception, sterilization, and abortifacients? What if a woman or man wants to marry multiple times for love? Should the government stop that? What about trans-fats, salt, fatty foods, sugary drinks: should the government be involved? There are lots and lots and lots of things The Government tells The People to do/not do that The Government should stay the hell out of. And, typically, it’s Democrats that are playing Mommy and Daddy.
Supporting marriage equality for gay and lesbian couples is simply the right thing to do for our country, a country founded on the principals of liberty and equality.
Yet, Democrats, and Government, work very hard to take away/limit liberty.
PS: Will Claire post this on her official Senate page, or simply leave it on her Tumblr page, where most of her constituents will miss it?
If I recall the context, 1Corinthian 13 refers not to marriage, but to how Christians should relate within the Christian Community. But when Liberals quote the Bible, they’re preaching to nobody in a choir.
Liberals seem to just take things and ascribe their own motives. From what I understand, it was about Paul rebuking a church over their abuse of spiritual gifts. It is about first giving your live to God through action, as well as to The Christ, followed by spiritually loving your fellow Man.
So, Claire Bear is all about free love then? Love for all. So, no corporal punishment, no prisons, no probations, no arrests, no cavity searches, no seizures of property or person?
With love, all things are possible. With love, there is no hate or anger. THere is only forgiveness. Turn the other cheek Claire Bear. Defund DHS. Defund TSA. Defund the Dept of Justice. Defund the Military.
Marriage is a religious institution. It was only the states that recognized the marriage. Not the other way around.
Once these anti-christian zealots pollute marriage, there won’t be anything sacred any more.
However, I’m almost certain that the Supremes will allow the bastardization of marriage. Our society is going that way.
If people want to be legally recognized as joined… then do a joining with a lawyer. If you want to “marry” your dog, you go ahead, but it won’t be a marriage, but you can legally join if that is allowed in your state.
Notice how they are insisting on bashing and removing religion and its rights. From christian schools, christian symbols, marriage, to ObamaCare and its attacks on religious freedom.
THE PEOPLE can not pass laws that violate the Constitution of the United States. In this country the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, not what is passed by legislatures be they local or state.
If THE PEOPLE don’t want The Government regulating what they eat and drink well, they can elect those that feel that way.
Should The Government regulate cell phones? yeah I agree with that one too
Gummie are you now in favor of religious amrriages and multiple wives now being legal ? surely the mormons and the muslims and even the Jews have a right to their historical beliefs???
So which one is it john?
You say you cannot pass laws contrary to the Constituition, but the say if people want to have laws regulating what they eat and drink, yhose laws are fine.
Where is the Constitutional provision that allows the government to decide what a person may eat or drink? (Absent of harm yo others) Please cite the article and clause. (I won’t be holding my breath for your response.)
As for the rest of your rant, once again that is a deflection and doesn’t address any of the issues raised in the op of Gumball’s response.
All you keep doing is proving you cannot discuss or debate any issue because a rational discusdion would show how wrong you are and you can’t have that.
First of johnny, you are conflating two seperate issues and both are opposite ends of that spectrum. Yes, as I stated, marriage is a religious institution that is recognized by the state. And it was determined that marriage is defined, by the Bible and by the people of the nation, as between one man and one woman. thus, polygamy is inherently areligious and illegal.
You bet. In the country that they come from. This is a Christian nation founded upon Biblical-Christian principles. (the mormon issue was addressed in my previous statement).
If the supremes rule that marriage is discriminatory and also rule that gay couples should be allowed to marry, then the door is open wide for polygamy, and all other forms of unnatural bonding. I fear that they will rule such.