“Glad you agree that the law should be what matters.
If this is the case you should have no qualms against California as it has been defined by law.”

I wonder why.

Report comment to moderator

It also clarified that church-related organizations that serve charitable or educational purposes are exempt from having to provide insurance and other benefits to same-sex spouses of employees.”

My apologies though, the first few articles i found on the subject yesterday never stated “civil marriages”, and you provided no links. They only discussed the loopholes like above.

But considering civil unions have been legal for the the past 2 years, and the people who have an issue with it, are still not required to recognize it as “marriage”, youve gained nothing.

“You can call it whatever you want, but under the law it’s a marriage. And the law is what really matters.”

In New Hampshire, yes. In California, marriage is defined differently. Glad you agree that the law should be what matters.
If this is the case you should have no qualms against California as it has been defined by law.

I have no qualms with NH, since it was a legislature passage. I dont agree with NH, but I dont have to live there either.

Report comment to moderator

You’re wrong about New Hampshire. The new law did exactly the opposite of what you’re claiming.

The bill the governor signed provides for civil marriage, and converts all existing civil unions to civil marriages. The marriage law takes effect on 1/1/10. Civil unions will no longer exist under the legislation the governor signed.

The application form will allow you to choose either “bride and groom” or “spouse”. But the certificate/license will be identical and will have the word “marriage” on it.

You can call it whatever you want, but under the law it’s a marriage. And the law is what really matters.

Report comment to moderator

And yet you want us to believe that Roeder spent years hearing about how abortion providers are genocidal Holocaust perpetrators, but that couldn’t possibly have anything to do with pushing him over the edge.”

Each side always plays the other. As the conservative side consistantly said Obama would be influenced by Wright or Ayers, the liberal side said despite long term associations it has not affected Obama or his character.

Now, its of course the conservative side saying that the anti abortion movement has not influenced this man to such an extent, while the liberal side says it is.

So its all drivel over and over again.

I do think that putting yourself under any group or influence especially for many years can rub off on you at least. It rose flags about Obama for me personally, but at the same time, I’ve never seen Obama approve or act in a similiar way as an Ayers or Wright.

However, the comparison here is really that Roeder is not influenced like Obama may be, but that Roeder is an extremist like an Ayers or Wright. He is a guy that would be influencing others, and not vice versa. He has an obvious screw loose, and his own beliefs are what pushed him over the edge, not anyone elses coercion or influence.

What little we know of Roeder it seems he’s always held this view, rightly or wrongly. There is no long term established link to any other pro life organizations, only his subscription to a newsletter that already agrees with his views.

Report comment to moderator

It provides for civil unions and has left it up to the ceremonial entities like a church to label it what they want. You call it marriage, but on the same street you may find one church that does and one church that does not and one that calls it sin. Since the state did not define it, its really all smoke and mirrors to make gays feel better while at the same time, accomplishing nothing binding on the state.

But hey, pat yourself on the back.

Report comment to moderator

The main gist of y post #132 applies equally to Roeder as well. This was obviously an angry man, angry at government, angry at the rule of law, angry about abortion, and ultimately, angry at God.

As far as using the word “terrorism” to describe Roeder’s deed, while it’s true, crime does “terrorize” (just ask anyone who has been on the receiving end), I think overuse of the word to categorize every unlawful act or just the ones we find personally egregious would soon render the word meaningless.

Report comment to moderator

A pointed, clear, direct shot at one man…is not terrorism.

At most, its assassination. The accused did not shoot anyone else or attempt to blow up anyone else, his attack was not against any sort of nation, but one man.

Was it terrifying? Yes. But would you rather have him charged with first degree murder, where he will actually get a trial under due process…or would you rather have him charged with terrorism and shipped off to our favorite terrorist camp to sit around without trial for years?

Report comment to moderator

I think Obama probably did absorb and identify with Jeremiah Wright’s beliefs, but that does not mean that Obama is responsible for Jeremiah Wright’s actions. I never said he was.

That’s not quite what I meant. All through the campaign, I kept hearing comments along the lines of, “There’s no way he attended that church and didn’t get influenced by those ideas.”

Not that Obama’s responsible for Wright, but rather, the other way around … that Obama must have been influenced by Wright. As you said yourself again in this post.

And yet you want us to believe that Roeder spent years hearing about how abortion providers are genocidal Holocaust perpetrators, but that couldn’t possibly have anything to do with pushing him over the edge.

Report comment to moderator

Report comment to moderator

#127

Best out of context smip.

You never seem to have the slightest idea of what I am trying to say.

Perhaps I do…perhaps it is pure, unadulterated nonsense…

Report comment to moderator