Prop 8 & DOM cases

[tanksmom]

I've seen a couple of posts criticizing people for celebrating today in light of the gutting of the Voting Rights Act yesterday. One person said:

Really? People aren't allowed to be happy about this? Since when is this a zero-sum game? I figured that part of the reason people are ecstatically happy today is because yesterday was so disappointing that people weren't sure what was going to happen.

I know this is a few days late but I had a hell of a week at work.

Why can someone not care or be passionate about more than one issue at a time? When my state was trying to limit who could vote the last election I was one of those standing in front of the polling places making sure that people who were registered to vote weren't turned away if they didn't have ID. I went toe to toe with people who called me all sorts of names and threatened violence to make sure that everyone's voice was heard. Just because I am elated that the federal government has acknowledged that it is unlawful to restrict right and people have the right to marry who they love doesn't mean I'm going to give up on everyone having the right to vote. I'm capable of champion multiple causes. I have in the past and will continue in the future to make sure that everyone, no matter your race, religion or sexual preference is treated as a human being worthy of my respect and my fight.

[merrily]

Josh Duggar's leghumpers are bringing all sorts of crazy to the table

joshduggar Historic Supreme Court rulings today #marriage 1w

alltine To say love knows no gender and "love is love" and people should be able to love whoever they want is a far too idealistic world. Love is not equal, and to love some things is wrong. Gender matters. We were created male and female. Different. I feel sorry for the children who ultimately pay the biggest price by not being allowed both a mother, and a father. It's not that the Bible discriminates, it's that nature itself discriminates. Thus, you can not believe the Bible, but that doesn't change nature and the difference between male and female. 1w

jessicambh Wrong is wrong no matter how many people agree. If you truly believe in God and the bible you cannot be happy about the way our country is going. You also cannot make a God up in your own mind that suits your beliefs. Either you believe and agree or you don't. 1w

alyciashawvdg Officially unfollowing all Duggers today. I find it too sad and disturbing to watch a third of their open-minded followers struggle to logically reason with the other ignorant, self-righteous 2/3rd, who fail to use sound logic and can't be bothered to check their "facts." I used to like the Duggers now I just fear for humanity whenever I read the comments under controversial posts... On a positive note congrats America on a vote towards equality! 1w

abbiezoeymomma Ok now u all are making me mad. He put this post to say it was a tent pole in history which it is no matter what u believe. What I am getting angry about is all the judgement. That is not for true followers of god to do. Live as u believe u should. To tell people they are wrong on either point is not your call to make. There is no person who has it all figured out enough to say what u r doing us right and others are wrong. All u can do is live as god guides you and raise your children to do the same. And be greatful u live in a society that allows you to live as u wish. 1w

garrett_peterson3 @jrwork07 really it's biblical foundations? Lol you may want to go back and look at our founding fathers. Every single one of them did not like religion and set up the constitution so that religion would not interfere with politics. Which is exactly why I laugh at all of your arguments against because no matter what your argument will loose. The constitution literally states no law shall be made on the basis of religion. It's really not that complicated to understand. 1w

aliciaort2 @garrett_peterson3 1w

reachinghiskids @alyciashawvdg your comment made me go back & read all the comments. Correct me if I'm wrong but Josh never responded & the comments were coming from people on both sides of the issue. His initial picture & comment were very neutral. Why unfollow? 1w

jessica_camille @alyciashawvdg what are the other Duggar instagrams?? 1w

sans_chess_piece Let yourself be open and life will be easier. A spoon of salt in a glass of water makes the water undrinkable. A spoon of salt in a lake is almost unnoticed.-Buddha 1w

lchops96 @emily_caitlyn99 No one wants you here! Get out so the gays can have happy, peaceful, loving relationships and you and your Christian brethren can keep murdering each other over your beliefs, getting divorces at alarmingly fast rates, beating your spouses and kids, denying people their BASIC FUCKING HUMAN RIGHTS, etc. Fucking cunt.

Read more at http://web.stagram.com/n/joshduggar/#4W ... bHsm22U.99

[Chowder Head]

What do these people mean by "natural marriage"? Anyway i brought pretty cake.

[Patsy]

What do these people mean by "natural marriage"? Anyway i brought pretty cake.

hooooly swear, I love it

[lizziesmom]

We need to get two more progressive judges on the court before the next round of cases. The anti gay folks are already proposing a constitutional amendment to define marriage as between man and woman only. The thing about these fanatics is that they're like bugs. Just when you think you've killed them all, hundreds appear again.

[OnceModestTwiceShy]

See you later guys, I need to lock myself in my kitchen until I can replicate that cake. :lol: SO PREEEETTY!

[pirate]

Chick-fil-a leaving political discussions to others. LOL.

What the heck is a tent pole in history?

[DistantStar]

He must be thinking of the tent pole permanently installed up his ass.

[OnceModestTwiceShy]

All I could think of when I saw "tent pole" was the inadvertent boner many fundies get when talking about gay marriage.

[Childless]

We need to get two more progressive judges on the court before the next round of cases. The anti gay folks are already proposing a constitutional amendment to define marriage as between man and woman only. The thing about these fanatics is that they're like bugs. Just when you think you've killed them all, hundreds appear again.

Seeing as how they have to have 2/3rds of either Congress or of states in a national convention to even get the process started, I doubt a constitutional amendment is going to happen. Not to mention the fact that 3/4ths of the states (that's 38 of them), need to ratify it. Right now, 13 states allow gay marriage leaving only 37 states that do not. Not enough to ratify a new amendment even if those 37 states were virulently against it (which, in the case of a handful of states, like New Jersey, they are not). They've tried to get a constitutional amendment passed on this subject before. Several years ago when people leaned more toward their side. They couldn't get it done then, what the hell makes them think they can get it done now when public opinion has shifted? I have no worries that they'll succeed. However, I do agree that we need some more liberal voices on the court. Unfortunately, the only justices that seem anywhere near retirement are the liberal ones. Replacing a liberal with a liberal will not change the make up of the court. We need to fervently hope that the Dems win the White House in 2016 and 2020.

[lizziesmom]

Seeing as how they have to have 2/3rds of either Congress or of states in a national convention to even get the process started, I doubt a constitutional amendment is going to happen. Not to mention the fact that 3/4ths of the states (that's 38 of them), need to ratify it. Right now, 13 states allow gay marriage leaving only 37 states that do not. Not enough to ratify a new amendment even if those 37 states were virulently against it (which, in the case of a handful of states, like New Jersey, they are not). They've tried to get a constitutional amendment passed on this subject before. Several years ago when people leaned more toward their side. They couldn't get it done then, what the hell makes them think they can get it done now when public opinion has shifted? I have no worries that they'll succeed. However, I do agree that we need some more liberal voices on the court. Unfortunately, the only justices that seem anywhere near retirement are the liberal ones. Replacing a liberal with a liberal will not change the make up of the court. We need to fervently hope that the Dems win the White House in 2016 and 2020.

I am not too worried about the success of a constitutional amendment. I'm just hoping that a couple of the conservative judges go on to their great reward in the next 3 years. You're preaching to the choir on this one. Absolutely we do not need someone like Mitten or Huckabee appointing young Supreme Court justices like John Roberts to the court. It's become quite clear since the Bush decision they are swayed by their political beliefs more often than precedent. The life time appointment thing should be reformed IMO.