More ominous legislation from Colorado

View · by **river_boater** on Fri Mar 29, 2013 9:28 pm

I really hate to link to WND because they are usually such moonbats, but this is troubling and nobody is reporting on it right now.

View · by **LarryP** on Fri Mar 29, 2013 10:09 pm

Obama in action

View · by **jshuberg** on Fri Mar 29, 2013 10:44 pm

I'm guessing that after legalizing pot, the Dems think that they can pull any kind of crap they want and be able to stay in power. They need to be taught a lesson. They need to be thoroughly decimated in the next election. For the sake of the Republic, I pray that it happens.

View · by **Mn01r6** on Fri Mar 29, 2013 10:47 pm

jshuberg wrote:I'm guessing that after legalizing pot, the Dems think that they can pull any kind of crap they want and be able to stay in power. They need to be taught a lesson. They need to be thoroughly decimated in the next election. For the sake of the Republic, I pray that it happens.

I hope they legalize pot here before we kick 'em out.

View · by **Heffay** on Sat Mar 30, 2013 8:36 am

jshuberg wrote:They need to be thoroughly decimated in the next election. For the sake of the Republic, I pray that it happens.

So, what are the Republicans doing to get more votes?

View · by **Rip Van Winkle** on Sat Mar 30, 2013 9:16 am

Heffay wrote:So, what are the Republicans doing to get more votes?

Trying to find their spine?

View · by **Heffay** on Sat Mar 30, 2013 10:49 am

Rip Van Winkle wrote:
Heffay wrote:So, what are the Republicans doing to get more votes?

Trying to find their spine?

Gotta do something to stand up to the Tea Party (aka Moral Majority 2.0).

You know, things like this:

http://www.salon.com/2013/03/29/north_c ... r_divorce/

Republican state Sen. Austin Allran wants to impose a two-year waiting period and mandatory marriage counseling for couples seeking a divorce in North Carolina. The “Healthy Marriage Act” would also force couples to attend a four-hour course on the impact of divorce on children.

Small government, eh?

View · by **NMRMN** on Sat Mar 30, 2013 11:26 am

Not really a matter of "small government" if you believe the government has any business whatsoever in enforcing contracts... Consider the issue of favorable tax treatment and why it was established, for example, which directly involves the state. I'm not suggesting that I favor the suggestion, rather that there is justifiable precedent, and not just an issue of a meddling government.

Gayle Kesselman wrote:Prior to the adoption of no-fault divorce laws by states, a divorce was processed through an adversarial legal system. This meant that the marital party wanting the divorce had the burden of proving that the breakdown in the marital relationship was the fault of the other marital partner. The bar for grounds for divorce was fairly high and consisted of such things as adultery, abandonment, or felonious behavior by the other marital party. Simply falling out of love did not make the grade. A judge was required to sign off on the divorce decree and it was not unusual for a judge to decide that the grounds for divorce were not met, in which case the parties remained married.

In the America of 2013, as a result of the no-fault divorce laws, heterosexual marriage has become what, among teenagers in the 1950's and 60's, would have been called "going steady." The institution of "going steady" was extremely popular among high school students of those days. It provided teenagers with social companionship and, for some teenagers and to a variable extent, outlets for sexual energy with someone of the opposite sex. However, it was never expected to be a lifetime commitment. It was a relationship which was by definition time limited and dependent on the consent of both parties.

Again, what is "marriage" anyway?

View · by **Heffay** on Sat Mar 30, 2013 1:15 pm

NMRMN wrote:Again, what is "marriage" anyway?

Depends. Which church do you think gets to define it for the government?

View · by **NMRMN** on Sat Mar 30, 2013 1:20 pm

Heffay wrote:
NMRMN wrote:Again, what is "marriage" anyway?

Depends. Which church do you think gets to define it for the government?

Not suggesting any should...

Whereas once it was a commonly understood institution, it is obviously now disputed. I think now is the time for the government to get out of the "Marriage Business".

PS we already have a marriage thread.. viewtopic.php?f=58&t=41708 Sorry River_Boater

View · by **river_boater** on Sat Mar 30, 2013 1:36 pm

Does every **** thread have to turn into a debate about marriage, gay or otherwise?

Heffay, I'm generally on your side (quietly) but I'm getting tired of your ****.

View · by **Heffay** on Sat Mar 30, 2013 2:08 pm

river_boater wrote:Does every **** thread have to turn into a debate about marriage, gay or otherwise?

Heffay, I'm generally on your side (quietly) but I'm getting tired of your ****.

Huh? I thought we were talking about small government stuff here.

View · by **goalie** on Sun Mar 31, 2013 7:47 am

river_boater wrote:Does every **** thread have to turn into a debate about marriage, gay or otherwise?

Heffay, I'm generally on your side (quietly) but I'm getting tired of your ****.

Heck, I can answer that, and I am certainly not Heffay.

Answer: because of the hypocritical nature of so many people who pretend to desire "small" government, but who, through their actions, demonstrate that they desire a lot of government that supports their beliefs, and "small" government for the other stuff they don't agree with.

Gay marriage points out that hypocrisy in a clear, concise manner.

View · by **Mn01r6** on Sun Mar 31, 2013 9:43 am

Well said goalie.

View · by **NMRMN** on Mon Apr 01, 2013 8:28 pm

goalie wrote:
river_boater wrote:Does every **** thread have to turn into a debate about marriage, gay or otherwise?

Heffay, I'm generally on your side (quietly) but I'm getting tired of your ****.

Heck, I can answer that, and I am certainly not Heffay.

Answer: because of the hypocritical nature of so many people who pretend to desire "small" government, but who, through their actions, demonstrate that they desire a lot of government that supports their beliefs, and "small" government for the other stuff they don't agree with.

Gay marriage points out that hypocrisy in a clear, concise manner.

Haha. You are delusional. YOU want big government: You want government to legally (an in, you know... BY LAW) sanction a novel social contract (that wasn't sanctioned before), and then you want to use tax money to subsidize it. Again, thats the problem with you liberals -- you mistake equality for liberty, and then you want the rest of us to pay for it.

But again, I digress.