jump to last post 1-8 of 8 discussions (127 posts)

the Democrats should be praising God that Trump is president...

  1. jackclee lm profile image82
    jackclee lmposted 3 months ago

    It seems to me, Trump being president is the best thing that happened for Democrats.
    He has given in on so many issues that they want and like.
    For example, raising the debt ceiling, keeping Obamacare and support for DACA...
    As president, Trump has done more to help democrats than even Democrats...
    Why do they still complain so much?

    1. PrettyPanther profile image84
      PrettyPantherposted 3 months agoin reply to this

      Because he's an insane clown?

      1. jackclee lm profile image82
        jackclee lmposted 3 months agoin reply to this

        So even if he does what you agee with, you still reject him? WOW???

        1. PrettyPanther profile image84
          PrettyPantherposted 3 months agoin reply to this

          In the same way that he does a bunch of crazy sh!t and you accept him?

          See, it works both ways.

          I fully support him working with the Dems.  Happy? That doesn't mean I've changed my assessment that he's an insane clown not fit to take care of my dog much less my country.

          1. jackclee lm profile image82
            jackclee lmposted 3 months agoin reply to this

            So when will your opinion change if ever?
            Are you so blinded that you would want our country go down in flames so you can claim that you were right about Trump...
            Definition of insanity...doing the same thing over and over again hoping for a different outcome.- Einstein.
            Haha

            1. PrettyPanther profile image84
              PrettyPantherposted 3 months agoin reply to this

              Read carefully,  Jack. If Trump does one thing I agree with, I will agree with that one thing.  If Trump does, say,  three big things I agree with, AND stops his stupid tweeting AND stops saying stupid things AND regains the respect of our  rallies AND puts forth a sane, cohesive foreign policy, AND is cleared of any wrongdoiing by the Mueller investigation,  I will  change my tune.

              1. jackclee lm profile image82
                jackclee lmposted 3 months agoin reply to this

                Just curious, what did you think of President Obama's foreign policy?

                1. PrettyPanther profile image84
                  PrettyPantherposted 3 months agoin reply to this

                  I thought it was imperfect but smart and rational. At least I knew he was knowledgeable and thoughtful, even if I disagreed with some of his policies. I trusted him to represent us with grace, intelligence,  and quiet strength in his dealings around the world.

                  I have no such trust for the insane clown.

                  1. wilderness profile image99
                    wildernessposted 3 months agoin reply to this

                    He presented with grace, intelligence and quiet strength...but who did he represent?  Truly, it seemed that America was the world's doormat in his world.

            2. PrettyPanther profile image84
              PrettyPantherposted 3 months agoin reply to this

              Where did I say I wanted our country to go down in flames?  I want no such thing. How in the world did you get that from what I said?

              1. jackclee lm profile image82
                jackclee lmposted 3 months agoin reply to this

                You miss understood what I was saying. I was commenting on the fact that you Trump haters would never admit that he did something good...
                You rather see our country fail than see Trump succeed...
                Does not make any sense?

                1. PrettyPanther profile image84
                  PrettyPantherposted 3 months agoin reply to this

                  Again,  I  did not say that.  No, it doesn't make sense.

        2. Misfit Chick profile image70
          Misfit Chickposted 3 months agoin reply to this

          Its the difference between having LOW standards and decent ones, Jack. Trump could suddenly start touting Universal Healthcare and I would STILL not want him NEAR my precious country's potus office. Then again, I'm not a Dem.

          I'm guessing you're mad at Trump now. I was wondering how long it was going to take his supporters to start turning on him since this pro-dem stuff started up. I think he's taking up Dem issues because 1) he used to be a Dem and actually supported most of their stuff to begin with; and 2) his own party isn't giving him the time of day - and he might get some cooperation from Dems to accomplish something.

          Its a conundrum. It would be incredibly funny if he manages to alienate the people who voted him into office to the extent that they turn on him - a virtual impossiblity right now. I would thoroughly-enjoy saying, "I told you so." LoL!

          No, anti-Trumpsters don't want him on our side, either - because he's far too caustic and NOT GOOD ENOUGH for us.

          1. jackclee lm profile image82
            jackclee lmposted 3 months agoin reply to this

            It is an ebb and flow... with Trump. I never voted for him but when he is attacked unfairly, I defend him. When he goes back on his promise, I will criticize him. That is called being consistent.

            1. jackclee lm profile image82
              jackclee lmposted 3 months agoin reply to this

              I hope all of you that commented realize that my topic title was in jest...
              For most progressive democrats, they are atheists and would not thank God for they don't believe he exists... But then when Harvey happens, some of them will claim in cartoons that it is the wrath of God on people that voted for Trump...Which is it? Is that consistent thinking or logic?

              1. Credence2 profile image81
                Credence2posted 3 months agoin reply to this

                What makes you think that progressive democrats are all atheists? This does not smack as being 'open minded' to me, Jack.

                1. jackclee lm profile image82
                  jackclee lmposted 3 months agoin reply to this

                  I go by what they say and do. Progressives believe that religion was made up by people of old to cntrol the masses... like Karl Marx - "religion is the opium for the masses"
                  Many of the progressive positions on social issues are anti-God... such as abortion, no fault devorces, gay marriage, legalize recreation drug use... do you feny that?

                  Show me a prominent progressive that is religious... if you can name one

                  1. PrettyPanther profile image84
                    PrettyPantherposted 3 months agoin reply to this

                    Jimmy Carter

                  2. wilderness profile image99
                    wildernessposted 3 months agoin reply to this

                    "Many of the progressive positions on social issues are anti-God... such as abortion, no fault devorces, gay marriage, legalize recreation drug use... do you feny that?"

                    Are you sure that you don't actually mean that progressive positions don't agree with what you think your god wants everyone to do?  That anyone believing in a different god than you do, or that thinks your common god wants something different, might was well be atheist as their belief is different than yours?

                    Obama, for instance, didn't worship as you think should be done, so he was more atheist than believer?

                  3. jonnycomelately profile image82
                    jonnycomelatelyposted 3 months agoin reply to this

                    Jack, many people in gay partnerships are strongly Christian.  Why?  you ask.   Because there is no where in their bible it says they can't be.  Your church clouds your vision of the world, I suggest.

              2. jo miller profile image92
                jo millerposted 3 months agoin reply to this

                I'm a progressive Democrat and I'm not an atheist.  Neither is my husband, my sister-in-law, my daughters, my son-in-law---and I could go on and on.  Maybe you should try to get to know some progressives.

                1. jonnycomelately profile image82
                  jonnycomelatelyposted 3 months agoin reply to this

                  That's funny.
                  Would you God as sitting up there "On High,"  and Trump as sitting down there "on low?"
                  smile

                2. jackclee lm profile image82
                  jackclee lmposted 3 months agoin reply to this

                  I know many. I have some in my family and some are my friends. Perhaps you and your family are the exception. Most progressives, in public life, are RINO, religious in name only...
                  The beliefs and principles of progressives are incompatible with most religion. They are humanists. They belief man is in control of his destiny. They put their faith in large government. The State is the answer to all our problems and needs...
                  Name one progressive ideal that puts God as central theme? You can't...

                  1. jonnycomelately profile image82
                    jonnycomelatelyposted 3 months agoin reply to this

                    Since that god only exists in the human mind, surely it's a Mental State.

    2. Credence2 profile image81
      Credence2posted 3 months agoin reply to this

      It seems to me, Trump being president is the best thing that happened for Democrats.
      He has given in on so many issues that they want and like.
      For example, raising the debt ceiling, keeping Obamacare and support for DACA...
      As president, Trump has done more to help democrats than even Democrats...
      Why do they still complain so much?

      Lets get real, Jack, shall we?

      Even Trump realizes that any more shenanigans like not raising the debt ceiling and shutting down the Government can only adversely affect the GOP who are in charge of both houses of Congress. Isn't he in enough trouble with leading Congressional Republicans already?

      Wasn't Trump the one that gutted DACA? Just because after he exploded the bombshell and now says that they are now, nice folks, did not change his original intent in the beginning....

      Trump wanted to dump Obamacare just because he failed to do that because of GOP infighting. That  does not mean he wanted to keep it and do Democrats a favor.

      1. jackclee lm profile image82
        jackclee lmposted 3 months agoin reply to this

        So you should be happy right?

        1. Credence2 profile image81
          Credence2posted 3 months agoin reply to this

          You put a pistol to someone's head they will do anything, it has nothing to do with his being moderate of considerate of Democrats. He is just as troublesome for us now as he was in the first day of his Presidency. I am only relieved that his machinations had failed so far, not that see has seen things in a new light.

          1. jackclee lm profile image82
            jackclee lmposted 3 months agoin reply to this

            So let me understand... regardless of the outcome of all these policies, immigration, healthcare, debt..., you won't accept Trump even if he goes along with what democrats wanted?
            WOW, that is an eye opener...

            1. Credence2 profile image81
              Credence2posted 3 months agoin reply to this

              From his stated position on things, if these things go as the Democrats want it, it will be in spite of Trump and not because of him.

              1. jackclee lm profile image82
                jackclee lmposted 3 months agoin reply to this

                Credence,
                Here is my prediction.
                Our country will continue on this path to insolvency and destruction...with the help of both Democrats and Republican RINO, and we conservatives can only sit by and watch...and possibly say "I told you so"... sad sad

                1. Credence2 profile image81
                  Credence2posted 3 months agoin reply to this

                  I will have to just see it to believe it...

    3. promisem profile image99
      promisemposted 3 months agoin reply to this

      He is not keeping Obamacare. He is sabotaging it by refusing to commit to paying for the subsidies, which is why many health insurance companies are adding a Trump premium. It's also why Virginia just lost all insurers in the majority of counties in the state.

      He does not support DACA. He just killed it, which is not a sign of support.

      Trump doesn't control the debt ceiling. Congress does. Both parties have voted repeatedly to raise the debt ceiling in recent years. So his involvement doesn't mean anything.

      1. jackclee lm profile image82
        jackclee lmposted 3 months agoin reply to this

        The health exchanges were failing long before Trump was elected president.
        With regard to DACA, he is trying to make it right. Obama instituted a temporary solution knowing full well it was unConstitutional.
        The debt ceiling is a joke. There was never a ceiling. We are spending like a drunker sailor until the whole thing crashes down...which it will. Mark my words. Economic laws are not to be broken.

        1. promisem profile image99
          promisemposted 3 months agoin reply to this

          Fox News has been saying that ACA is failing since the day the law passed. Yet it's still alive 8 years later, even under a Republican president and Congress. And doctors, hospitals and insurance companies want to keep it as well.

          https://www.forbes.com/sites/brucejapse … 2f7eb26ece

          Regardless, I was addressing your comment that Trump is "keeping" Obamacare, which he is not.

          1. jackclee lm profile image82
            jackclee lmposted 3 months agoin reply to this

            Trump had no choice. It was Congress that did not pass the repeal, in specific a few Senator like John McCain.

            All the people I know does not like ACA. In my personal case, I am paying more premiums, a higher deductible and less coverage. How is that good for 90% of Americans like me?
            I understand some who didn't qualify before or couldn't afford insurance are now covered with subsidies. Couldn't that be achieved some other way? For example, expand medicaid...?

  2. jackclee lm profile image82
    jackclee lmposted 3 months ago

    President Donald Trump and first lady Melania Trump are donating $1 million to 12 charities involved in Harvey relief efforts. The White House says the American Red Cross, Salvation Army, Samaritan's Purse and Reachout America will share $800,000 of the donation. The Trumps are giving $25,000 each to the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, Catholic Charities, Direct Relief, Habitat for Humanity, Houston Humane Society, Operation Blessing, Portlight Inclusive Disaster Strategies and Team Rubicon.

    1. Randy Godwin profile image94
      Randy Godwinposted 3 months agoin reply to this

      That's all? How does that compare to the Bill and Melinda Gates donations? And you do know these donations are tax deductible, eh Jack? tongue

    2. Au fait profile image93
      Au faitposted 3 months agoin reply to this

      It's been all over the Internet, and I'm sure it's on TV too, that Trump has backed out of his donation to Harvey victims/charities like he has always backed out of promised donations before.  The man is a liar and has a reputation to uphold.  He is painfully careful never to tell the truth, except when he says he's going to cut spending.  That he follows through on, especially if it involves the elderly, children, poor people, veterans, or a combination thereof.

      Further, your list of accomplishments suggests you live on Uranus.  He and Mitch have been feuding for a long time over ObamaCare and in Trump's so-called mind, for lack of a more accurate word, it still isn't settled, and so he continues to heap demeaning names on McConnell.

      This is my last word on this subject so don't waste your time trying to call me names, etc.  Just do some research for yourself beyond Breitbart, Fox, and Info Wars and you may just learn some truth -- if you have that ability.

  3. Kathleen Cochran profile image83
    Kathleen Cochranposted 3 months ago

    "So even if he does what you agee with, you still reject him? WOW???"  It's called principles, standards, character.  Any of these ring a bell?  Even in politics?  Conservatives, the American Christian Right, is supposed to be about these things. Remember?

    1. jackclee lm profile image82
      jackclee lmposted 3 months agoin reply to this

      Sure, that is my position and why I am against these latest changes in Trump. What baffles me is why the democrat opposition is still angry at him? They should be overjoyed...

  4. Kathleen Cochran profile image83
    Kathleen Cochranposted 3 months ago

    PrettyPanther:  These folks see just another politician in the White House.  You can't help them see anything differently.  They put Trump in the same category as every other president.  You can't get them to see the difference because they are responsible for this debacle and don't want to see it.

  5. jackclee lm profile image82
    jackclee lmposted 3 months ago

    Btw, I forgot to mention the most important piece. Progressives does not believe our nation was founded based on a Christian philosophy...that is why they perverted the interpretation of the Constitution of the separation of church and state to mean removing any reference to God from the public square. Do you even know what is meant by the true meaning of separation? Please look it up...

    1. wilderness profile image99
      wildernessposted 3 months agoin reply to this

      Got to go with SCOTUS here - using public monies and space to exhibit icons from one religion, while prohibiting those of any or all other religions, seems far too much like "establishing a religion".  Something the constitution specifically denies that the federal government can do.

      1. jackclee lm profile image82
        jackclee lmposted 3 months agoin reply to this

        No it doesn't and the same goes with playing Christmas tunes on radio or in Christmas shows in public schools. It is "popular" among the people in the community. It is not establishing anything of the sort.
        A state religion is like they have in Germany and the UK which is what our founders were trying to avoid. They prayed at every meeting...don't tell me about separation of church and and state as interpreted by the Supreme court. They get somethings wrong in the past and they got this one wrong.

        1. jackclee lm profile image82
          jackclee lmposted 3 months agoin reply to this

          Wilderness, by the way, I just returned from a trip to Annapolis, the naval military academy in Maryland. They have a beatifil Chapel on Campus with a cross on top. Is that establishing a religion? Guess what, they have services there of every major denomination including Christians, Moslems and Jews.
          Do you think a building like that would be build any where in a public space today? I don't think so. So what changed?

          1. jackclee lm profile image82
            jackclee lmposted 3 months agoin reply to this

            https://usercontent1.hubstatic.com/13692558_f1024.jpg


            https://usercontent2.hubstatic.com/13692559_f1024.jpg


            https://usercontent1.hubstatic.com/13692564.jpg

          2. Credence2 profile image81
            Credence2posted 3 months agoin reply to this

            The issue, Jack, is "establishment", people are free to believe and worship as they want or not want. There is a difference in that and having teachers indoctrinate my children in their religious dogma in public schools.

            I wrote a hub about that, maybe you might do me the honor and have a look and see if I am reasonable in my interpretation?

            1. jackclee lm profile image82
              jackclee lmposted 3 months agoin reply to this

              Sure, what is the title of your hub?
              My hub explain the basics of our Constitution - American Civics 101

              1. Credence2 profile image81
                Credence2posted 3 months agoin reply to this

                https://hubpages.com/politics/One-Progr … rican-Life

                Mentioning God in a commencement address is not proselytizing or indoctrination. I think that Wilderness makes the distinction in his comment quite well

                1. jackclee lm profile image82
                  jackclee lmposted 3 months agoin reply to this

                  So why is that disallowed in public schools and universities?

                  1. Credence2 profile image81
                    Credence2posted 3 months agoin reply to this

                    Quite frankly, I did not know that is was.....

            2. jackclee lm profile image82
              jackclee lmposted 3 months agoin reply to this

              By the way, teachers are not there to indoctrinate. They are there to teach.
              Praying on a football field is not indoctrinating. It is an optional and free exercise. No one is compelled to pray. An atheists would not know how to pray...

              The same goes with giving a speech at a graduation. Why is a person not allowed to mention God which he believes to have influence in his live...?
              These are all decrees made up by unelected judges who are liberal and atheists and are members of the ACLU, a communist organization. Did you know that?.

              1. wilderness profile image99
                wildernessposted 3 months agoin reply to this

                in·doc·tri·nate
                [inˈdäktrəˌnāt]
                VERB
                teach (a person or group) to accept a set of beliefs uncritically:
                "broadcasting was a vehicle for indoctrinating the masses"
                synonyms: brainwash · propagandize · proselytize · reeducate · persuade · convince · condition · program · mold · discipline · instruct · teach · train · school · drill · instill · inculcate

                When a teacher assumes the existence of their personal definition of a god, and passes that assumption to a classroom of children that look to that teacher as a fount of knowledge and wisdom it is indoctrination.  When the classroom (or school) puts religious icons up, prays every day, accepts religious literature as true in every respect and either refuses to discuss or demeans any knowledge contrary to that assumption, it is indoctrination.

                While it won't work nearly so well with adults, children looking to a teacher as always providing truth WILL be indoctrinated.

                When you are OK with having your children attend a school teaching Wicca beliefs, Wiccan spells and activities and plastering the walls with Wiccan symbols and tenets you have the right to say religion in schools is fine.  Not until.

                1. Credence2 profile image81
                  Credence2posted 3 months agoin reply to this

                  Right on point, thanks, Wilderness

                  1. jackclee lm profile image82
                    jackclee lmposted 3 months agoin reply to this

                    I guess you don't have any idea of how people gain faith. They don't get it from school. It is taught starting in the family from birth and then in the churches and synagogues or mosques...or temples...every religion has certain practices or rituals passed on from one generation to the next. When a person reaches adulthood, in the Catholic faith, he or she is asked to participate in a Confirmation sacrament. This is where the individual choose to belief and accept Christ as savior. No amount of school or pray or speeches can do this...get it?
                    The problem you described was put out falsely by the ACLU through the courts without any people voting in this. That is why we are in such turmoil today.
                    The Communist knew the only way to defeat us is by removing religion from the masses. Ever since the 1950s, we have seen steady decline in civility, and personal responsibility and rule of law...why? Because we told the people, man knows what is best and there is no higher authority. They don't want to be judged by a moral code. Whatever feels good is OK...is it working out? You andwer that.

                2. jackclee lm profile image82
                  jackclee lmposted 3 months agoin reply to this

                  Well I considered this believe in man caused climate change to be a religion. Doesn't Al Gore preaches this in our schools with his documentary? I guess you are OK with that...

                  1. Credence2 profile image81
                    Credence2posted 3 months agoin reply to this

                    It is science, Jack cmon, do all you right wing types still believe that the moon is made of green cheese because Jesus told you so?

                  2. wilderness profile image99
                    wildernessposted 3 months agoin reply to this

                    Do you view climate change as a belief in a god?  If not, it has exactly zero to do with government promotion of religion or religious beliefs.

                    re·li·gion
                    [rəˈlijən]
                    NOUN
                    the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods:

                    While it is a popular tactic to call anything we don't like or agree with "religion" it is not true and does not come even close to the meaning assigned to the term in the constitution.

        2. wilderness profile image99
          wildernessposted 3 months agoin reply to this

          Playing christmas carols on the radio has zero to do with government.  And you're assuming that christmas plays in schools have a religious overtone, and they do...to the believers that assign that meaning to Christmas.  As a non-believer I assure you that such a meaning is singularly lacking to those that don't - it is a time of good cheer, giving and love, without the religious overtones that others give.

          But that cannot be said of a plaque saying we shall worship the Christian god, or of a white, bearded man nailed to a cross.  These are very plainly religious tokens and government has no business promoting them.

          Places of worship on government land - the military does right in providing chapels for it's members as many have nowhere else to go, they are multi-denominational and religion is very important to some members of the military.  It works for hospitals for the same reason, and even such places as airports where some people need the comfort of a spiritual counselling when flying.

          On the other hand, dedicated foot washing stations in airports for Muslim cabbies is out of line, just as the ten commandments or religious statues are.  Requiring government officials to sit through a prayer is similarly out of line - the members that want a prayer can do so in private before attending.
          In such cases the SCOTUS is 100% correct - promoting one religion, Christian or otherwise, or even theism in general, is NOT the business of our government.

          1. jackclee lm profile image82
            jackclee lmposted 3 months agoin reply to this

            You are missing the point. No one is promoting the religion. You cannot force anyone to believe. That is why I brought up the example of the christmas songs on radio. It is something that the majority of  the listener enjoy and tune in to listen. The same goes with Christmas shows in schools. The majority of the people in the school are Christians. In nyc, most of the teachers are Jewish. That is why they close the school during high holy days. There is not enough teachers to be at school to keep the doors open... The Chapel in Annapolis was built at a time when the majority of the people were Christian and the Supreme Court did not weigh in on this until the 1950s when the ACLU and the American Humanists got involved with the courts. They forced the interpretation of separation of Church and state to mean completely opposite what the founders intent. They wanted the government to stay out of religion not the other eay around. Please read your history and the writing of some of our founders in their own words. God and religion was central to their lives. They believed in divine guidance that created our nation...where is the secular nature that people today are forcing down our throat. They are rewriting history...

            1. jackclee lm profile image82
              jackclee lmposted 3 months agoin reply to this

              Also, the 10 commandments appeared on the building of the Supreme Court. Why is that?

              1. wilderness profile image99
                wildernessposted 3 months agoin reply to this

                Because Christianity had a much strong hold on this country in the past.  A past where women couldn't vote, gays couldn't marry and blacks were slaves.

                The church was also instrumental in prohibition, in passage of blue laws and in teaching religion in schools.  Doesn't make any of it ethical or legal, though.

                1. jackclee lm profile image82
                  jackclee lmposted 3 months agoin reply to this

                  I get that but that is our history like it or not. Our founders found a clever way to allow for change. Why did slaves get abolished?
                  Why did women allowed to vote? 

                  We live in an imperfect world. we try to make the best of it given the circumstance.
                  Hopefully, with time, we learn from our past and grow as a people.

                  We cannot judge people from past generations using our current guidelines.

                  Yes, Washinton and Jefferson own slaves. Thst does not make them bad people. They found a new nation that became extremely successful. They put in measures for the possibility of change and evolution and allowed the abolution of slaves 80 years later.

            2. wilderness profile image99
              wildernessposted 3 months agoin reply to this

              What, then, do you think "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" means?  Do you think it means going through the back door to push Christianity on the population, as long as laws are not passed to force it legally?  Does it mean as long as there are no laws requiring it, mandatory schooling can include religious teachings?  Does it mean that laws can be written to follow scripture, and for no more reason than it is scriptural, just as long as God is not mentioned?

              Or does it mean that govt. may not "respect" (have an official) religion, and that each and every one may worship and believe (including atheism for parent AND child) as they wish?

              1. jackclee lm profile image82
                jackclee lmposted 3 months agoin reply to this

                You are confusing religion with policy. I read the Constitution literally just what it means. Words have meaning...Establishing to me means creating a State Religion like the Church of England which we faught a war to escape from. No one in the religion community wants the Government to create a state church. That is freedom of religion... got it?

                Now with respect to policy, such as abortion and gay rights...the churches all have some rules in this matter. However, that is not what the government should follow. It should be debated and voted on by the Congress and laws enacted... It was never intended for 9 apointed justices to rule in this crucial issues that affect all Americans.
                I hope you see the difference. The Catholic church is against abortion on religious grounds. Abortion as a legal matter depends on many factors and some are based on medical considerations. When does life begin? And when does our rights begin? Does a fetus in a mother's womb have basic rights just like any individual person?
                These are the questions that science and medial profession can provide guidance. We are now considering giving rights to AI robots... the Constitution and the church have no guidance on this...robots did not exist in our history.
                These are ethical questions to be debated, not interpreted...

                1. wilderness profile image99
                  wildernessposted 3 months agoin reply to this

                  "That is freedom of religion... got it?"

                  I got it, but I don't think you do.  It also means Catholicism.  It means Christianity cannot be required by government.  It means no laws created solely because of Christianity.  It means no govt. Islam, no govt. satanism, no govt. required Buddhism.  It means govt. cannot uphold ANY religion over any other.

                  "It should be debated and voted on by the Congress and laws enacted... It was never intended for 9 apointed justices to rule in this crucial issues that affect all Americans."

                  Except the the small matter that it was decided 200 years ago, with the constitution.  Catholics may be against gay marriage as a matter of God's instructions, and that's fine.  For Catholics, but govt. is not Catholic.  And for others, well, Catholics don't have the right to force their god's rules on anyone but themselves. 

                  When human life begins is not an ethical question.  It is a definition question, and Catholics may not, once more, decide for everyone else what the definition is.  Only for themselves, as they think their god wants them to.  You, in fact, say it yourself: "The Catholic church is against abortion on religious grounds."  But in this country "religious grounds" do not make law no matter how badly Catholics might wish it did.

                  For the life of me, I cannot understand what is so hard to understand about freedom of religion.  You yourself would hate to see, say, Islam providing the laws of the nation.  But you don't seem to understand how the Catholic church is just as abhorred by those not of that religion and refuse to acknowledge any reason your church cannot make law to match it's interpretation of it's holy scripture.  I don't get that.  As far as the rest of us are concerned the laws of Catholicism are no better than those of Islam; either one is based on myth that is known to be false.  Just as Islam is for you.

                  1. jackclee lm profile image82
                    jackclee lmposted 3 months agoin reply to this

                    You are still not getting it. Am I not speaking in English?
                    No one is supporting enforcing a religion on the populace.

                    It is decided by we the people...as it should.
                    On the question of gay rights, it should have been a decision by the majority of the people.
                    If the majority of the voting citizens, regardless of their religion, decided it is a good thing, so be it.
                    It should not be decided by the Supreme court.  Their job is to decide if a law is Constitutional or not?
                    The way it suppose to work is this...
                    1. people votes for representatives and senators that agree with their positions on various issues...
                    2. They go to Washingon and pass laws that reflects what their constituents want...
                    3. The Supreme court may weigh in and decide whether a particular law is Constitutional or not.
                    4. If not, the Congress may choose to rewrite the law...

                    On some bigger issue, some may want to initiate an Amendment to the Constitution. This will require 2/3 votes and 3/4 of the States... a much higher bar to cross...by design. We don't want a popular vote to change the Constitution willy nilly...

                    I would put the abortion issue on the same level as gay marriage. It is a question of when does life begin. If you think it begins at conception, it may mean one way. If you think it begins at birth it is totally different. Because, a life would be protected by the Constitution, under equal justice and the bill of rights would apply to the fetus in the womb...depending how we see it...

  6. jackclee lm profile image82
    jackclee lmposted 3 months ago
  7. jackclee lm profile image82
    jackclee lmposted 3 months ago
  8. jackclee lm profile image82
    jackclee lmposted 3 months ago

    BTW, I am not a loon in believing this. Just a few short years ago, many politicians on both side of the aisle including Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama had the same position I have on gay marriage.

    1. jonnycomelately profile image82
      jonnycomelatelyposted 3 months agoin reply to this

      "What about marrying a pet, a computer, polygamy... it is endless...... Sorry Jack, that line of reasoning is so bizarre.  I know it's not your own thinking, you have picked it up from someone else, but it does not in any way help in accepting diversity.  Your intelligence surely tells you it's not reasonable.

      Ok..  If you don't want the term "marriage" used by same-sex couples, what term would accept?  If you were to use a different term, would you embrace their right to enjoy all the benefits enjoyed by heterosexual couples, without exception?  E.g., taxation, superannuation, legacy, child rearing, etc.?

      1. jackclee lm profile image82
        jackclee lmposted 3 months agoin reply to this

        Yes to all. I think civil union should be the proper course. If the current laws don't cover some of these issues, just revised the law. I would support them because I am for equality.

        1. wilderness profile image99
          wildernessposted 3 months agoin reply to this

          "Equality".  As long as people you approve of are a little more "equal" and get to choose which form of marriage they would like to have.  Or will you relegate all marriages not performed by the priesthood to second class, calling them by another name all of a sudden?

          1. jackclee lm profile image82
            jackclee lmposted 3 months agoin reply to this

            What do you mean? Equality as based on our Constitution. Equal justice, equal opportunity, not of equality in everyway. That is not possible. We are not equally gifted, mentally or physically. Please don't confuse the issue. I was talking about rights, such as inheritance, social security benefits, medical decisions... all the arguments used by gays that they want to be married so they can have these rights...
            I am saying they can achieve all the above by implementing laws that cover by civil unions. It can be extended to cover any groups that want to share their life.
            Some gays actually agree with me and that the marriage issues was not important.
            It is the activists that are making this an issue.

            1. wilderness profile image99
              wildernessposted 3 months agoin reply to this

              I understand that.  Blacks were "equal" in the back of the bus, or in their segregated but equal school, just as gays are "equal" in having a "civil union" when they want the same "marriage" as those a little more equal.

              "I am saying they can achieve all the above by implementing laws that cover by civil unions."

              Just as the religious can have their "God's union" performed only by clergy but providing for all the same things marriage does.  Is there something wrong with having to accept a lesser title for your union, but that gays should be happy with?  So far you've steadfastly refused to accept the new, lesser, title for you own union - is it because you don't like being discriminated against, don't like being set aside as different than mainstream or just want someone else to do the changing?  After all, what difference does a word make if it means the same thing?

              1. jackclee lm profile image82
                jackclee lmposted 3 months agoin reply to this

                You are missing the point. Words do have meaning and thus why I object changing the definition of marriage. It has nothing to do with my religion. There are marriages in every nation and every culture and not all are religiously based. They are based on human nature... get it?

                Marriage was the foundation of cilivization, a family, which became a community, which became a tribe and then a nation...the progression of human development was based on our human nature, a sense to belong, a coop to work together, division of labor, working towards a more perfect union...

                Why are you so stuck with religion? Where is the separation pf church and state that you liberals claim you support...? Do you even know the meaning of that term?

                1. wilderness profile image99
                  wildernessposted 3 months agoin reply to this

                  No, Jack - you are missing the point.  You have suddenly decided that the millennia old definition of marriage was "one man and one woman", (which is patently false) and then want to use your personal definition to require a sub-class of people to use different terminology for their union.  Terminology which you decline to use yourself.  That you go on and say that words have power, and that gays can't use the words you have decided are for you and yours, simply accentuates the point that you are willing, or even eager, to discriminate against those you find objectionable.

                  "Where is the separation pf church and state that you liberals claim you support...?"

                  I'll give you a hint: it isn't to be found in requirements that what God has proclaimed a sin be separate from God's people and not allowed the perks that God's people have.  I doubt that you will find a single atheist that cares if gays marry - virtually all the naysayers are theists of one kind or another, and, in this country, virtually all are Christian.  Odd, then, that you claim it is not religion based.

                  "Marriage was the foundation of cilivization, a family, which became a community, which became a tribe and then a nation...the progression of human development was based on our human nature, a sense to belong, a coop to work together, division of labor, working towards a more perfect union...

                  All the things gays exhibit in their marriage.  How is it they are then relegated to second class status in the matter of marriage?

 
working