I think that's where it gets confusing
Posted By: AnudderMT on 2009-05-02
In Reply to: Well....civil unions would have - Trigger Happy
There was an article in the Des Moines Register today that a busload of people came up from Missouri to get married here in Iowa, where it is now legal, knowing that when they went back to Missouri, the marriage was null and void. What makes the situation somewhat atypical in this case is that if I recall correctly, Missouri has a constitutional amendment defining marriage as 1 woman/1 man. Historically states have recognized the marital status between each other (which is why we don't have to get remarried each time we move!), so whether an Iowa marriage license among same-sex couples would be valid in a state that does not have a constitutional amendment specifically banning those unions is not clear.
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
This is getting confusing! sm
I am not prowar, I am, as AG says, proactive. I believe we should have gone into Iraq. We have to deal with Iran. I believe the money is coming from Saudi Arabia. We need to deal with them. And then there is North Korea. By *dealing with*, I mean we must be vigilant, identify the real enemy, and plan accordingly. What exactly is worth fighting for if not our way of life. One of my favorite quotes is by John Stuart Mill, who penned his thoughts with prophetic brilliance: ‘War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things; the decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks nothing worth a war, is worse. A man who has nothing which he cares more about than he does about his personal safety is a miserable creature who has no chance at being free, unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.'
You are correct - confusing
This whole war thing has gone on so long it is confusing. I'm not purposely trying to put wrong facts up there. I read it from a newspaper and also I've been hearing it on TV all day. All I remember throughout the campaign was him saying he'd bring the troops home. To me its all the same thing. I don't ever remember him separating the two regions, but like you say it is on youtube and I can research for myself which I will. But I about fell off my chair when I heard he's sending more troops and I never heard him talk about sending troops during his campaign. Like I said, and I'll be the first to admit if I'm wrong. I just honestly don't remember it like this.
I will, however, not admit that I put up deceiving posts. I stated a fact. Obama is sending more troops to Afghanistan, 17,000 according to the news source I read. I did not make that figure up.
Question for you though. Where are those troops going to come from. If you tell me that Obama is going to re-route them from Iraq to the Afghanistan, then I would have to say that is what I would consider a lie/deceit (my opinion - and don't shoot me for having opinions). He had many of us fooled into believing the troops would be coming home. My best friend told me her son (in Afgan. would be coming home as would her husband in Iraq). But if he doesn't re-route them and sending fresh soldier's over, then no it's no a lie on his part (IMO).
I also wouldn't be so quick to judge people for their beliefs. If I'm wrong I'll say I'm wrong but one other poster wrote "selective hearing". (I voted for the guy in the primaries, I believed in him back then). I don't know about anyone else out there but it can be real confusing. Just like the stimulus bill, etc, etc. I will however do some research and watch some more youtube when I get a chance.
Do you need new eyeglasses? You are confusing me with somebody. I never said that....nm
nm
Wow...that is sort of confusing.
I guess if I were gay and had a partner, I'd just swap rings on my own and throw a party. The love two people have between each other means more than a legal piece of paper, IMO. I wouldn't travel to another state to get married just to go back home and it not mean anything legally. As often as people get divorced, you gotta wonder if straight people really get marriage.
Are you sure your are not confusing arrogance with intelligence and sm
confidence? Those are the qualities we need in a president aren't they?
No, I am not confusing the body with an 844-ft mountain top...
What I am referring to are the many cases where schools will have rules that ban crosses or any form of Christian expression, but allow Muslims/Sikhs to wear headscarves. The ACLU by and large will not take those cases even if asked. If situation reversed, they will sue on behalf of Muslims/sikhs without being asked.
Again...the first ammendment guarantees freedom of religion and the free expression thereof. The last 4 words mean as much as the first words.
The first ammendment prohibits the establishment of a state religion...like the church of England that required everyone to follow that religion. There is nothing in the constitution that uses the words separation of church and state. The founding fathers did not seperate Christianity from the government...it is interwoven in the founding documents, on our currency, on the walls of Congress. It is part of the American heritage. From the drive to come here for religious freedom came the drive to set out the other individual freedoms.
As I said, if people find sharing the gospel annoying a simple I am not interested works with most Christians. There is always a radical fringe associated with any religion...some more than others. There is a radical political fringe.
All I am saying is that Christians are discriminated against in this country. And the same people who will rise up and decry discrimination against Muslims, et al, will not rise up and decry the same discrimination against Christians. I would think civil liberties apply to ALL of us....
I said nothing about putting a cross on public ground...don't know why you went off on that tangent. :)
Maybe she's confusing Obama's parties with.(sm)
the parties held at the Department of Interior under Bush....LOL.
You are confusing tyranny with losing
http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=223862&title=Baracknophobia---Obey
Your post is grammatically confusing and makes no sense nm
jm
|
