Out of curiosity, how do you view yourself politically?

[Rams Fan]

Poll forthcoming.

[listopencil]

Originally Posted by gonefishin53

Religious texts have defined marriage for thousands of years, making it a religious institution. If the State has the power to edit religious texts to define marriage, who can stop the state from editing religious texts to define God as the State. I'm not a religionist, but I consider State control over the definition of words in religious texts to be anti-liberal tyranny. I don't care if someone wants to enter a legally binding agreement with their pet rock, it's not marriage. Marriage is defined in religious texts.

Legal texts have defined marriage for thousands of years, making it a government institution. If the Church has the power to edit laws to define marriage, who can stop the Church from editing legal texts to define God as the State? I'm not a lawyer, but I consider Church control over the definitions of words in legal texts to be anti-libertarian theocracy. I don't care if someone wants to make a religion out of worshipping a rock, it's not the law. Law is defined in legal texts.

[listopencil]

Originally Posted by Aries Walker

Good thing we have separation of church and state in this country.

In fact, this is a pretty good illustration of why we have separation of church and state in this country.

Amen.

[alpha_omega]

Gaz

[gonefishin53]

Originally Posted by listopencil

Legal texts have defined marriage for thousands of years, making it a government institution. If the Church has the power to edit laws to define marriage, who can stop the Church from editing legal texts to define God as the State? I'm not a lawyer, but I consider Church control over the definitions of words in legal texts to be anti-libertarian theocracy. I don't care if someone wants to make a religion out of worshipping a rock, it's not the law. Law is defined in legal texts.

1 U.S. Code § 7 - The Definition of "Marriage" and "Spouse"
In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word “marriage” means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word “spouse” refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.

Can. 1055 §1 The marriage covenant, by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of their whole life, and which of its own very nature is ordered to the well-being of the spouses and to the procreation and upbringing of children, has, between the baptised, been raised by Christ the Lord to the dignity of a sacrament.

I'm no legal scholar, but a quick google search turned up these two legal definitions of marriage. If the FedGov uses it's policing power, via federal courts, to impose a definition of marriage not established by federal law on states, religious institutions, private businesses and the people, that would seem to be a clear violation of the 1st Amendment protection of the free exercise of religion. And I'm pretty sure the Bill of Rights, including the 1st Amendment, was enacted to protect the states and the people from FedGov actions like denying free exercise of religion.

[cosmo20002]

Originally Posted by gonefishin53

1 U.S. Code § 7 - The Definition of "Marriage" and "Spouse"
In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word “marriage” means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word “spouse” refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.

Can. 1055 §1 The marriage covenant, by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of their whole life, and which of its own very nature is ordered to the well-being of the spouses and to the procreation and upbringing of children, has, between the baptised, been raised by Christ the Lord to the dignity of a sacrament.

I'm no legal scholar, but a quick google search turned up these two legal definitions of marriage. If the FedGov uses it's policing power, via federal courts, to impose a definition of marriage not established by federal law on states, religious institutions, private businesses and the people, that would seem to be a clear violation of the 1st Amendment protection of the free exercise of religion. And I'm pretty sure the Bill of Rights, including the 1st Amendment, was enacted to protect the states and the people from FedGov actions like denying free exercise of religion.

Whatever Can 1055 is, the government has no ability to change it. You said the govt is, or is going to, 'edit religious texts.' Well, they haven't and I don't know how they would. What you're saying just makes no sense.

[listopencil]

Originally Posted by gonefishin53

1 U.S. Code § 7 - The Definition of "Marriage" and "Spouse"
In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word “marriage” means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word “spouse” refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.

Can. 1055 §1 The marriage covenant, by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of their whole life, and which of its own very nature is ordered to the well-being of the spouses and to the procreation and upbringing of children, has, between the baptised, been raised by Christ the Lord to the dignity of a sacrament.

I'm no legal scholar, but a quick google search turned up these two legal definitions of marriage. If the FedGov uses it's policing power, via federal courts, to impose a definition of marriage not established by federal law on states, religious institutions, private businesses and the people, that would seem to be a clear violation of the 1st Amendment protection of the free exercise of religion. And I'm pretty sure the Bill of Rights, including the 1st Amendment, was enacted to protect the states and the people from FedGov actions like denying free exercise of religion.

Are you quoting from the Defense Of Marriage Act? It was overturned by the Supreme Court as unconstitutional.

[listopencil]

Originally Posted by cosmo20002

Whatever Can 1055 is, the government has no ability to change it. You said the govt is, or is going to, 'edit religious texts.' Well, they haven't and I don't know how they would. What you're saying just makes no sense.

That second paragraph appears to be a quote from the canon of the Catholic Church. I agree with you. What he has posted doesn't seem to make sense.

[Taco John]

Haha... This is funny because liberal spenders don't admit that they're liberal spenders. They consider themselves economic conservatives rationalizing that their ideal is to spend rich people's money, not their own.

[cosmo20002]

Originally Posted by Taco John

Haha... This is funny because liberal spenders don't admit that they're liberal spenders. They consider themselves economic conservatives rationalizing that their ideal is to spend rich people's money, not their own.

What's even funnier is that conservative spenders don't admit they are liberal spenders. An easy starting point to look at is about 1981.

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by Taco John

Haha... This is funny because liberal spenders don't admit that they're liberal spenders. They consider themselves economic conservatives rationalizing that their ideal is to spend rich people's money, not their own.

Yeah, or to put it another way:

Economic conservative/Social liberal #1: I want reduced spending on social programs, decreased tax rates for economic growth, and pot legalization.

Economic conservative/Social liberal #2: I want increased spending on social programs, increased tax rates to pay for it, and pot legalization.

[Mr. Flopnuts]

Originally Posted by ClevelandBronco

Usually fiscally conservative and socially liberal, but I firmly believe that abortion is nothing but legally acceptable murder.

I'll tell you a secret. I do too. I'm a pro choice guy. Hey, it's your vagina. Do what you want with it. Just don't get butt hurt when I call you a murderer.

[Mr. Flopnuts]

Originally Posted by Taco John

Haha... This is funny because liberal spenders don't admit that they're liberal spenders. They consider themselves economic conservatives rationalizing that their ideal is to spend rich people's money, not their own.

If me thinking the top 1% should pay 40% of the debt since they own 40% of the wealth makes me fiscally liberal then so be it. Law, legislation, and tax code have been very beneficial to them. They should pay their fair share. As should everyone else according to their personal wealth.

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by Mr. Flopnuts

If me thinking the top 1% should pay 40% of the debt since they own 40% of the wealth makes me fiscally liberal then so be it. Law, legislation, and tax code have been very beneficial to them. They should pay their fair share. As should everyone else according to their personal wealth.

Those things have been very beneficial to the other 99% too.

[blaise]

Originally Posted by Taco John

Haha... This is funny because liberal spenders don't admit that they're liberal spenders. They consider themselves economic conservatives rationalizing that their ideal is to spend rich people's money, not their own.

Like Loneiguana. He views spending other people's money as some sort of noble cause, as if it costs him a dime.

[blaise]

Originally Posted by Mr. Flopnuts

If me thinking the top 1% should pay 40% of the debt since they own 40% of the wealth makes me fiscally liberal then so be it. Law, legislation, and tax code have been very beneficial to them. They should pay their fair share. As should everyone else according to their personal wealth.

Couldn't an argument be made that anyone with luxuries has more than they need and should therefore pay their fair share to the impoverished?
It's a relative idea, isn't it? I mean, does anyone actually need a second home, boat or jet skis?