I do agree with slavery being an ignorant law, but it was harmful. telling a gay man he cant be recognized by law in marriage isnt physical harm, like a slave got a whip.

 

Sodom and Gomarrah isnt garbage. It is history and things must start somehwere for the downfall to begin. This is maybe it.

 

religion and homosexuals do mess with religios beliefs.

 

at least we do agree with killing sex offenders

The administration is still enforcing the law, just not defending the law in court. And from my understanding there is only 1 provision that is being challenged.

If so ignorant then why was it put in? Is the ones who allowed it so ignorant too? Laws are not ignorant, the ones who dont like them becasue they affect them are ignorant.

 

I just heard a guy say he wanted out of jail because selling drugs is against the law, reason, he thinks it is an ignorant law. He said pharmacies do it all of the time, so why cant he. Also said he could undercut the prices due to high prescripion prices. Is that not capitalism.

 

IMO only a true atheist or false believer would be against this FEDERAL LAW

 

The problem with you're line of thinking is that this isn't a Christian nation, never has been, and never will be. It's a nation of freedom, which includes religious freedoms. Your religious beliefs don't take precedent (nor should they), over the beliefs of someone else. Say John Doe's faith doesn't belief homosexuality is wrong, why should your religious belief take precedent over his?

 

Homosexuals being allowed to be married does absolutely zero to impact your life. It has no bearing on you in the slightest. Homosexual couples are not allowed to receive the same health benefits among other things that married couples are. That is just one example of how allowing the law to stay in place actually is detrimental to some people. Removing it harms no one but homophobes and bigots IMO.

we used to be a Christian nation based on christian morals, then idiots took over. Now look at the US and all that is wrong with it.

we used to be a Christian nation based on christian morals, then idiots took over. Now look at the US and all that is wrong with it.

 

No we weren't. The US has always been a country that accepts people of all walks of life (religious beliefs included). The U.S. has never been a strictly Christian nation, nor will it ever be.

 

There's a lot wrong with the U.S., no doubt, but it's still far and away 100x better than anywhere else in the world.

A man marries another man, All Tell is not affected at all. A man goes into an emergency room because he doesn't have health insurance which causes All Tell's premiums to rise as well his or her potential wait time in case a real emergency. Two very different scenarios.

 

The scenario has nothing to do with it nor does the effect. The fact that Obama has decided that he doesn't think the law is constitutional is the issue. Now answer my question. If a Republican president decides that Obamacare is unconstitutional and instructs the Justice Department not to defend it, are you OK with that or does you thinkng apply only to laws you don't agree with.

 

 

FWIW same sex marriage is very low on my list of issues, I tend to be of the opinion that it really has no bearing on me but I will be the first one to say I told you so when polygamists use it as a precident to legalize their lifestyle.

I will agree it is better than anyone else

A man marries another man, All Tell is not affected at all. A man goes into an emergency room because he doesn't have health insurance which causes All Tell's premiums to rise as well his or her potential wait time in case a real emergency. Two very different scenarios.

 

Happens with or without Obamacare.

The scenario has nothing to do with it nor does the effect. The fact that Obama has decided that he doesn't think the law is constitutional is the issue. Now answer my question. If a Republican president decides that Obamacare is unconstitutional and instructs the Justice Department not to defend it, are you OK with that or does you thinkng apply only to laws you don't agree with.

 

 

FWIW same sex marriage is very low on my list of issues, I tend to be of the opinion that it really has no bearing on me but I will be the first one to say I told you so when polygamists use it as a precident to legalize their lifestyle.

 

Truthfully no I wouldn't be, but I don't believe it is unconsitutional unlike I believe that DOMA is. To deny individuals rights based on sexual orientation who are otherwise upstanding citizens is discrimination. I'm confused a little, are you upset that it isn't being defended which has obviously happened before or by the fact that you support the law?

Happens with or without Obamacare.

 

It most certainly happens at alarming rates without it, they jury is still out on with it. Anything was worth a try in my opinion.

we used to be a Christian nation based on christian morals, then idiots took over. Now look at the US and all that is wrong with it.

 

Yep the good ol' days when we owned slaves, women couldn't vote, then we freed the slaves but they couldn't vote, then we had separate water fountains and lunch counters and African American kids couldn't go to Ole Miss. The Southern Baptist broke from other baptist because of the SB defense of slavery. Yep, a Christian nation with Christian morals.

Truthfully no I wouldn't be, but I don't believe it is unconsitutional unlike I believe that DOMA is. To deny individuals rights based on sexual orientation who are otherwise upstanding citizens is discrimination. I'm confused a little, are you upset that it isn't being defended which has obviously happened before or by the fact that you support the law?

 

I'm upset by the fact that Obama has IMVHO overstepped his bounds by declaring the law unconstitutional. That's what courts do, not the executive branch. He is well within in perview to push for repeal of the law through congress but part of the function of the executive branch is to uphold laws. Regardless of what you, I or Obama believes the law is still on the books until ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.

 

I really don't feel stronly one way or the other about the law other then I do believe that if it is ever repealed proponents of other lifestyles will use it as a precident to legalize their lifestyle. Would you extend the same protections of law to adult polygamists.

I'm upset by the fact that Obama has IMVHO overstepped his bounds by declaring the law unconstitutional. That's what courts do, not the executive branch. He is well within in perview to push for repeal of the law through congress but part of the function of the executive branch is to uphold laws. Regardless of what you, I or Obama believes the law is still on the books until ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.

 

I really don't feel stronly one way or the other about the law other then I do believe that if it is ever repealed proponents of other lifestyles will use it as a precident to legalize their lifestyle. Would you extend the same protections of law to adult polygamists.

 

He is upholding the law. He said he would continue to enforce the law. The DOJ is simply not defending the court case.

Their JOB is to defend signed laws, not to decide which ones to defend. A president's sole avenue to define the appropriateness of a passed law is either by signing it or vetoing it. Since the law was passed and signed by another president the Obama and his DOJ IMVHO have a duty to defend the law in court. If he wants ro push for repeal more power to him. What he has done IMVHO is set the precedent that will allow any future president to decide if particular laws are constitutional and decide whether to defend them or not, thus my question about Obamacare. What if the person that replaces Obama decides Obamacare is unconstitutional. By you own admission they would be within their power to stop defending it, correct?

Their JOB is to defend signed laws, not to decide which ones to defend. A president's sole avenue to define the appropriateness of a passed law is either by signing it or vetoing it. Since the law was passed and signed by another president the Obama and his DOJ IMVHO have a duty to defend the law in court. If he wants ro push for repeal more power to him. What he has done IMVHO is set the precedent that will allow any future president to decide if particular laws are constitutional and decide whether to defend them or not, thus my question about Obamacare. What if the person that replaces Obama decides Obamacare is unconstitutional. By you own admission they would be within their power to stop defending it, correct?

 

As long as they continue to implement it.