Was it necessary to repeal DADT?

[Ferd]

Originally Posted by James Griffin

Actually you said hold hand which implies assist. Also sure that you did not know a robbery by definition is an assault combined with a theft. And is a felony in every jurisdiction.

let me be crass.... really really crass...


killing an innocent baby is murder. doing so by walking into an abortion clinic with no reason relating to the survival of the mother, is premeditation.

I consider premeditated murder to be far more offensive offense than robbing someone.... even if you knock their teeth out in the process.

i do believe that someone who has had an abortion is fully capable of finding forgivness of their sin and should be cared for by the people of God.

I cannot for the life of me find a solid reason why a child of God would walk into a murder clinic and hold a woman's hand while she asks for a dr to kill her innocent baby.

Last time I checked (in Texas where you and I are) if a person walks into a store with a buddy who robs the place and kills the clerk, the "hand holder" is treated as a murderer too... even if they didnt have a gun when it happened.

[Ferd]

Originally Posted by James Griffin

Nope! You are right though that would be funny

oh, ive seen some of that in this thread Brother Griffin... not from you but I have seen it. and I have only read 3 or 4 pages. couldnt stand reading any more than that.

[James Griffin]

Then you are correct you missed the conversation which preceded it and puts things in context

[Baron1710]

Originally Posted by Truthseeker

Right, if same sex marriage accepted then why not polygamy.

I don't think the Supreme Court is going to overturn its decision on polygamy. I realize I am about 12 pages behind and if this has already been addressed...

Polygamy, as far as the Supreme Court is concerned, is the twin of slavery.

[Baron1710]

Originally Posted by James Griffin

Because polygamy has legal Supreme Court precedent and same sex marriage does not, and it take MUCH more to overturn precedent than to make new one.

Polygamy therefore extremely extremely unlikely to change.

Same sex marriage though has a shot ever since Lawrence v Texas was blotched so badly by the State. They argued privacy law instead of state's rights and lost big time. Therefore state's rights lost as well. It will loom large when the cases finally do go up.

Although as Baron pointed out it may be a equal protection clause under competing state's rights case that triggers it which will make the outcome even more unforeseeable.

And Behold the brightest legal mind among us has already answered it.

[Sam]

Originally Posted by Baron1710

I don't think the Supreme Court is going to overturn its decision on polygamy. I realize I am about 12 pages behind and if this has already been addressed...

Polygamy, as far as the Supreme Court is concerned, is the twin of slavery.

Maybe I missed something.
I did not realize the U.S. Supreme Court had ruled on polygamy.
Could you tell us when this was and what case?

[Baron1710]

Originally Posted by Sam

Maybe I missed something.
I did not realize the U.S. Supreme Court had ruled on polygamy.
Could you tell us when this was and what case?

Yes, the case is Reynolds v. United States and it was in the mid 1870's.

[Baron1710]

Sam here are two pages for you. The first gives you the basics of the case and the second is a link to the whole opinion.

http://www.oyez.org/cases/1851-1900/1878/1878_0

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/script...l=98&invol=145

[Hoovie]

Originally Posted by James Griffin

sandie seriously? Comparing providing succor to a woman having an abortion to assisting in a felonious armed robbery?

I thought the same thing. It's not a fair comparison at all. Much, much worse to aid and abet a killing.

[James Griffin]

Originally Posted by Baron1710

Yes, the case is Reynolds v. United States and it was in the mid 1870's.

The case was decided in 1878. In 1890 the leader of the Mormon church announced God had changed His mind and no longer desired polygamy.