Supreme Court

ImWaitingForTheDay

Annoy a conservative....Think for yourself
Franken to Gorsuch: “I Had a Career in Identifying Absurdity, and I Know It When I See It”
Clearly, that trucker's life was worth less to Gorsuch then the trailer and it's contents. He should have stayed and died of hypothermia or lost both his legs to frostbite and never have been able to work again, because the Corporate Entity has more rights than a human employee."But, but, Senator, I don't know what I would have done, I'm not one of those commoners who would do something so vulgar as drive a truck for a living"

That is basic Conservatism.
 

wayfair

swollen member
Franken to Gorsuch: “I Had a Career in Identifying Absurdity, and I Know It When I See It”
Clearly, that trucker's life was worth less to Gorsuch then the trailer and it's contents. He should have stayed and died of hypothermia or lost both his legs to frostbite and never have been able to work again, because the Corporate Entity has more rights than a human employee.

That is basic Conservatism.

my question with that scenario.... how do the brakes interfere with the heating system of the tractor???
 

ImWaitingForTheDay

Annoy a conservative....Think for yourself
so the brake's froze up, correct??

how does the heating system in the tractor stop working Stuart???

frozen brakes don't lead to "hypothermia or lost both his legs to frostbite"
Do you know how to read???The cabin heater was broken....
You miss an important point. Corporations are people, my friend--so the choice was to save a person worth maybe a few hundred thousand dollars, or part of a person worth millions. Think of the humanity, had that truckload of goods been lost!How about Drbrown, what would you have told you daughter if she was in the same situation, and called for your for advice?" Better yet
I'll invite Gorsuch and you drbrown along with any other ups,fedex guy to come here to upstate NY next winter and sit for three hours in a truck cab without heat when it's -15F outside at night, not driving to safety, and not knowing when the experience will end.

Both of you will find out he's correct: multiple amputations and/or gangrene from frostbite are indeed "unpleasant."
 

BrownArmy

Well-Known Member
Never thought about it except in terms of "semantics".

Let religions/cultures have "marriage" and have the legal definition as a Legal Union (or some such term).
Same results and no sense of government intrusion into a social/religious/cultural institution.

A Libertarian still has to play politics...

Great.

As you came to realize, there are advantages in 'registering' a marriage in terms that the State recognizes, but even those advantages are merely clerical: did you pay the $?? in fees?

When I got married, the guy who married us didn't particularly have any religious affiliation, but he had paid $?? for some permit to be 'legally' able to marry persons (he was also a great family friend).

I went down to City Hall, with my fiance, I think we spent a total of $20 on marriage licenses, etc.

At no point did anyone ask me what faith I subscribed to.

Seems to me, pay the money to the man, same way you pay property tax, or parking tickets, etc.

In which case, why would it matter if the marriage were between MF or FF or MM?

As far as the State is concerned, pay the $100 or whatever amount, collect $200, pass GO, buy property, etc.

As far as I'm concerned, the State views 'marriage' in the same way as it views the purchase of a car, or a house.

Why people have to drag religion into the 'State' side of the marriage equation baffles me.
 

Catatonic

Nine Lives
Why people have to drag religion into the 'State' side of the marriage equation baffles me.
Because marriage was already a cultural and religious institution before the USA was formed?

Maybe religions in the USA can come up with a new term (maybe a covenant) and let the USA Central Government dictate to the states and county government what constitutes a "Legal Marriage".

I really don't care about marriage honestly.
I'm just very happy for my friends & family who got married and have the legal rights same as opposite sex marriages had before.
 
Last edited:

Babagounj

Strength through joy
The whole concept of gay marriages was decided by lawyers .
Judges are lawyers , along with lawmakers and public officials .
Business had been slow and they needed another source to make money from .
Think about it .

The gov't now has to give spouses' benefits as well as corporations and companies .
Lawyers now have more people looking for wills and other documents to sanction this new union .
And all the divorces, too.
 

Catatonic

Nine Lives
The whole concept of gay marriages was decided by lawyers .
Judges are lawyers , along with lawmakers and public officials .
The lawyers are minions to the Judges who sit at the top of the Pyramid.
The Peak of the Pyramid who dictate to the rest of the pyramid how they should, and where possible, how they will, live their lives.
 

DriveInDriveOut

Inordinately Right
Never thought about it except in terms of "semantics".

Let religions/cultures have "marriage" and have the legal definition as a Legal Union (or some such term).
Same results and no sense of government intrusion into a social/religious/cultural institution.
The problem with that idea is it undermines the old concept of marriage.

Religions in general are more "liberal" now than ever. Gay couples have been married in churches "in the eyes of god" for quite some time now. It was the government that was the hold out, not religion as a whole.

A big reason conservative denominations and their followers don't want legal marriage for all sexual orientations is because having the state enforce their beliefs on everyone else was their last stand against religious factions they don't like.
 

It will be fine

Well-Known Member
I really don't care about marriage honestly.
I'm just very happy for my friends & family who got married and have the legal rights same as opposite sex marriages had before.
That's bull. You're happy for them, but you want them to have to use a different word so everyone understands that their union is inferior to yours.
 

DriveInDriveOut

Inordinately Right
That's bull. You're happy for them, but you want them to have to use a different word so everyone understands that their union is inferior to yours.
Depends on how you look at it though doesn't it?

If everyone married in a church has to also file the paperwork for a legal union......

I mean there are a lot of churches that will marry gay couples. Then they go file the paperwork for a legal union just like the straight people would have to.

Take the word marriage out of government all together and it puts it back in the hands of the people to decide what it means.
 

wkmac

Well-Known Member
is Las Vegas a religious establishment???

That would depend on the definition of religious or religion that is used.


The anthropologist in me sez that religion is an expression of culture so yes.

What has corrupted marriage is the intermingling of the State with it. Remove the State and all the privileges the State has endowed upon marriage and the entire marriage debate disappears like a fart in the wind. Let it return to its rightful place as a religious and/or cultural tradition.
 
Top