Was it necessary to repeal DADT?

[James Griffin]

Originally Posted by Jason Badejo

Joe Biden on Gay Marriage: Legalization Is 'Inevitable'


This CONFIRMS my entire argument, keep your heads in the sand if you wish.

Jason the problem is with applying this to DADT, which is a governmental policy decision.

For same sex marriage to be legal it will require affirmation by a majority of the citizens of the state which recognizes it.

Big difference policy vs legislation.

And if the majority of citizens approve, then what can you say except God Bless the Republic.

It still won't affect what I preach.

[DAII]

Originally Posted by James Griffin

Jason the problem is with applying this to DADT, which is a governmental policy decision.

For same sex marriage to be legal it will require affirmation by a majority of the citizens of the state which recognizes it.

Big difference policy vs legislation.

And if the majority of citizens approve, then what can you say except God Bless the Republic.

It still won't affect what I preach.

Yet the call remains for legal CIVIL RIGHTEOUSNESS ... that will bring us to Christ.

We can legislate the Gospel ... that'll work.

While criticizing the other side for BIG GOV'T and bastardizing the Constitution.

[Baron1710]

Originally Posted by James Griffin

Jason the problem is with applying this to DADT, which is a governmental policy decision.

For same sex marriage to be legal it will require affirmation by a majority of the citizens of the state which recognizes it.

Big difference policy vs legislation.

And if the majority of citizens approve, then what can you say except God Bless the Republic.

It still won't affect what I preach.

James, How long do you think it will be before full faith and credit forces states to accept it because other states have?

[James Griffin]

Originally Posted by Baron1710

James, How long do you think it will be before full faith and credit forces states to accept it because other states have?

If and when are fully in the hands of our beloved Supremes.

[Baron1710]

Originally Posted by James Griffin

If and when are fully in the hands of our beloved Supremes.

Indeed. Honestly I don't see how they can rule any other way than to allow for full faith and credit based on the law.

"Such Acts, records and judicial proceedings or copies thereof, so authenticated, shall have the same full faith and credit in every court within the US and its Territories and Possessions as they have by law or usage in the courts of such State, Territory or Possession from which they are taken."

[Mr. Smith]

Originally Posted by James Griffin

Now that Dan did my job and presented a great logical well reasoned legal argument I guess I will give a brief shot at common sense.

Really guys, your whole scenario seems to revolve around the "horror" of open showers.

Common sense brethren, exactly how long do you think an overtly gay guy hitting on straights in the shower is going to last in the military?

Wouldn't even make it up to command. VERY self-regulating. So with that straw man dead, kindly stick to the facts of equal protection under the constitution of the US.

This post grinds it all down to the simplicity of the argument. Dan's Romans post is brilliant and a theological masterpiece. Yet, when we drill to the center of this, it's as simple as you final instruction (the bolded).

[Mr. Smith]

Originally Posted by DAII

Ever read Ethan Frome ... by Edith Wharton ???... your doom and gloom arguments sound like the raving, malady ridden Zenobia ... who was once munificent and optimistic but have resigned yourself to the apocalypse of your hypochondria.

Truth be told your heroic crusader ... has gaping holes in his theology, logic and civic mindedness.

But alas, there is hope ... he once was a flaming 3 stepper.

Biblical righteousness comes through Jesus Christ ... not American laws.

This, combined with James' summary, neatly tie up the entire debate. It really can't go outside those parameters.

[James Griffin]

Originally Posted by Baron1710

Indeed. Honestly I don't see how they can rule any other way than to allow for full faith and credit based on the law.

"Such Acts, records and judicial proceedings or copies thereof, so authenticated, shall have the same full faith and credit in every court within the US and its Territories and Possessions as they have by law or usage in the courts of such State, Territory or Possession from which they are taken."

An equally valid equity and public policy would be made the other way.

If one state chooses to recognize incestuous marriage can it force the other forty nine?

As to the conclusion of the matter, I believe we both agree it will depend on the composition of the Supreme Court at the time.

By the way 5 inches of snow in New Bern, its beautiful !!

[Baron1710]

Originally Posted by James Griffin

An equally valid equity and public policy would be made the other way.

If one state chooses to recognize incestuous marriage can it force the other forty nine?

As to the conclusion of the matter, I believe we both agree it will depend on the composition of the Supreme Court at the time.

By the way 5 inches of snow in New Bern, its beautiful !!

We have about the same here.

i suppose it will depend but I have to say there isn't a real strong argument to prevent it.

[Baron1710]

Originally Posted by James Griffin

An equally valid equity and public policy would be made the other way.

If one state chooses to recognize incestuous marriage can it force the other forty nine?

As to the conclusion of the matter, I believe we both agree it will depend on the composition of the Supreme Court at the time.

By the way 5 inches of snow in New Bern, its beautiful !!

This will have the end as Loving v. Virginia.