(June 27, 2015 at 1:34 pm)professor Wrote: The 23rd of Sept is the date that comes up a lot.  
It is in a bunch of Hollywood flicks, it's the day an EU spokesman declared 5oo days to avoid"Climate chaos" falls on.
It is the Day of Atonement, the Jubilee, number 120 from Genesis and one Jubilee from the retaking of Jerusalem by Israel.
I think the False Prophet will be here in America on that day also.

You might want to lay off the 'shine, "professor".

I think *most* of the Republicans are happy that this issue is resolved. They know they are losing ground with the electorate on this, and now they have an easy out.

(June 27, 2015 at 5:27 pm)SteelCurtain Wrote: I think *most* of the Republicans are happy that this issue is resolved. They know they are losing ground with the electorate on this, and now they have an easy out.

It definitely gives more moderate republicans an easy way out.  But far right republicans might still fracture the constituency in the primaries over the issue.
 
All in all I think the GOP's goal will be to make sure LGBTQ issues do not end up as a talking point during the presidential election at all.

Andy Borowitz:

http://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowitz-...Mjc1NzMyS0

Quote:  [/url]
[url=http://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowitz-report]Borowitz Report
Just published 4:59 pm
Supreme Court Forces G.O.P. to Seek New Bogus Issues for 2016

Quote:Priebus acknowledged that the loss of Obamacare and gay marriage as issues had dealt a serious blow to the G.O.P.’s supply of meaningless talking points, but he claimed that the Party would come back with even more insincere rhetoric than before. “Anyone who thinks we’ve run out of b.s. is sorely mistaken,” he said.

(June 27, 2015 at 5:27 pm)SteelCurtain Wrote: I think *most* of the Republicans are happy that this issue is resolved. They know they are losing ground with the electorate on this, and now they have an easy out.

The non-completely-batshit crazy ones, anyway.

(June 27, 2015 at 6:34 pm)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote:

(June 27, 2015 at 5:27 pm)SteelCurtain Wrote: I think *most* of the Republicans are happy that this issue is resolved. They know they are losing ground with the electorate on this, and now they have an easy out.

The non-completely-batshit crazy ones, anyway.

In some cases, Stan Smith isn't a parody, but a mirror.

We were watching some coverage/analysis of the reaction to this late last night.  Some particularly dim bulb from one of the Dakotas (I think) was having a right moan that the people of her state voted in a ban on gay marriage a couple of years ago, and now the 'Supreme Court has rejected the will of the voters.'  Bitch, you don't get to vote on rights.  That's why they're called 'rights'.

Update:  It has been more than a full day since the Court's ruling on gay marriage, and the US still has not been destroyed by the wrath of an Almighty God.  Ha ha.

Boru

Quote:That's why they're called 'rights'.

It's a good fucking thing or the south would have re-instituted slavery.

(June 27, 2015 at 7:47 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: Update:  It has been more than a full day since the Court's ruling on gay marriage, and the US still has not been destroyed by the wrath of an Almighty God.  Ha ha.

Boru

I think God(Yahweh) is actually pretty cool with gay people and he's really pissed at all his so called "followers" for massively strawmanning his teachings.

I'm of two minds on the supreme court ruling.  For one, I've long thought that it's wrong to provide certain civil rights to some and not to others.  So in that regard I'm okay with the ruling.  On the other hand, I hate to see so many Americans supporting homosexual relationships as moral.  I know we're a pluralistic society and we should provide rights to all citizens regardless of religion, but in order to do it we changed the definition of what we believe marriage is, and we could do the same thing by just allowing exactly the same civil rights for all without doing that.  I've brought up this example before, and I believe it's equally acceptable.  A man in college can be barred from joining a sorority, but he may join a fraternity and have equal status.  I see no reason to redefine what a sorority is because they discriminate against men.  Is there any difference between that situation and the government just granting equal benefits to any qualifying civil union without redefining an institution as it existed at the time the constitution was written?  The writers of the constitution and those who ratified it never envisioned marriage as a union between two people of the same sex. I guess christians will now have to come up with a new word to call what they now call marriage.