It seems to this non-lawyer that by deciding which religious authorities are allowed to conduct a wedding, it is a clear violation of the First Amendment. Are not Hindus, Muslims, and Buddhists not allowed to conduct weddings within their faith? This is just another remnant of the entrenched Christian privilege that has been allowed to continue far too long.
Not only should Hindus, Muslims, and Buddhists be allowed their own traditions and ceremonies, they should ALSO be allowed to bypass them in favor of a secular ceremony, if they so choose.
Despite the fact that I suspect Texas doesn't want to admit that such people exist.
I've lived in Texas for some time now. There are two Texas's, rural and urban and they have little in common. A lot of people do not realize that two of the five largest cities in the U.S. are in Texas, and they're not full of knuckle-dragging morons.
It isn't limited to Abbott. Ken Paxton is a corrupt as they come, and Dan Patrick is a four-star religious nut case. They are kept in power by the rural folk.
And the bulk of the legislature isn't much better. The can pass a dozen constitutional amendments to control how the state's tax money can be spent, but they can't remove outdated and illegal provisions in state law or the constitution.
I've lived in TX for a couple of years and visited family after they moved their with AMD (in Austin).
It is a place unto itself. I read a joke and told it to a friend who was from TX:
A father overheard his son asking the new neighbors if they were from Texas. When his son came home, the dad sat him down and said, "Son, I couldn't help but overhear you asking the new neighbors if they were from Texas. Don't you know, you're not supposed to do that. If they're from Texas, they'll tell you."
She laughed her ass off and agreed that that was indeed Texas mentality.
I live in the burbs of north Dallas. A lot of Texans do not consider Dallas to be part of Texas. Primarily because it's not full of knuckle dragging morons.
I remember some years ago, an atheist woman ran for office (Representative). She managed to pull in 25% of the votes. I was quite shocked that she got that much being an atheist and a woman.
I wonder how many of them are from out of state. Knuckle draggers massively complain about the influx of "Californians" changing things up, even people who aren't native to the state complain. (There are more people who have "moved" out of CA than have ever lived in CA.) They don't realize that their gov't is courting companies, particularly tech, and inducing them with tax benefits to move to their state. The people are just following their jobs.
Hey now, I drive by a Sikh Temple on my way to and from the office. Even see some guy with a turban and a long grey beard (ZZ top long) riding a bicycle to and from it many days.
Oh, Texas knows they exist. They see non-whites and non-christians as invaders crossing the border in caravans, like in a game of Risk, there's a dotted line on the ground. They think viruses don't, only people do.
Hindus and Muslims fall under "a person who is an officer of a religious organization and who is authorized by the organization to conduct a marriage ceremony". The religious group overlooked would be unprogrammed meetings of the Society of Friends since they have no officiants whether for marriage or anything else (the couple marry each other at a meeting for worship and those present signing as witnesses).
I think they are. See my reply to CDBunch above. From my reading of Hemant's post, I think this is more of an atheist vs theist issue than a JudeoChristian vs. other theists + atheists issue.
Here in the UK, they are allowed to perform their religious ceremonies, but they lack legal standing, and a second, non-religious ceremony was performed as City Hall. Friends of ours did this.
In the US, that would mean men forgetting two anniversaries instead of one.
I'ma go out on a limb here and guess that the number of non-religious judges in Texas, active or retired, is so vanishingly tiny that their existence, while theoretically possible, is effectively irrelevant to the matter at hand. And I suspect I'm being exceedingly generous to the state.
If only Nevaeh family and boyfriend could sue nabbott, plankton, halitosis, 3/5th, ofdrumpster, goresuck and beer pong man. All of them have Nevaeh blood on their hands.
And this is what happened to a conservative Christian who wasn't even seeking an abortion- she just needed to be treated like a patient instead of a radioactive hot potato, and both her life 𝘢𝘯𝘥 her pregnancy probably could have been saved.
The GQP won't even protect their own tribe. If you're not a cis/het rich white man, your life doesn't matter to these fuckers.
Pardon me for sounding like a broken record, but marriage FAR predates the 3 Abrahamic faiths. They didn't invent the institution. They sure as shit don't own it.
I've felt for some time now that all marriages should, legally, be the same; and only require filling out some paperwork and turning it in so far as the government is concerned. I'd be okay with a smallish fee to cover the government's work keeping track, and maybe some testing for public health reasons. Generally, no celebrant, cleric, priest, or other official of any kind should be needed for marriage so far as the government is concerned, and the paperwork is only needed to get whatever tax or other legal benefits apply to marriage.
After that, if people want to pretend their ceremonial shenanigans were important, fine. They can go throw their little party, and invite their guests, and whatever else they might think they need to do. If they want to throw a massive party at the local religious building for all their friends and family to bring them presents and get roaring drunk, sure. The ceremonial aspects of a marriage should never have any legal meaning, they're just a social norm that most people elect to follow so that the community knows they've been married, which should make zero difference under the law. The government should not care who performs the ceremonial duties, only that the people involved are consenting and understand the legal fallout of their decision.
Good luck to CFI and Mr. McCutchan on this one. Texas is apparently the Busybody State, and isn't likely to give up without a fight.
Technically, the religious ceremony has no actual legal meaning here, but the state greatly restricts non-religious celebrants/officials who need to sign the paperwork. AIUI, a "ceremony" is required to make it official, even if it's just the couple, 2 witnesses and a celebrant to attest to the fact that the couple said 'I do'
And one of 'em will only count until the other one decides they don't need the smokescreen anymore. As I've said in the past... Jews should be wary; that hyphen in "Judeo-Christian" is attached with explosive bolts.
It is the view of some Christians that the term "Judeo-Christian" refers to the pre-Jesus Old Testament part of the Bible being adopted into Christianity - that it's already non-inclusive of living Jews.
Why does Texas --- where men are men and the sheep are nervous --- need to have only religious people performing marriages? It's not that this is any guarantee as to how long such couplings will --- or should --- last, i.e. "Magic Sky Daddy say y'all is now wed in His Blessed Name, and you is tied together furever and ever in this Holy Bond(age) and can never part until one of you kills the other. Amen." What the hell does religion have to do with matrimony anyway? Anyone (including the State) should be able to "bless" the union of two (or more) people who hopefully/foolishly want to spend the rest of their lives together. It's like the father walking the daughter down the aisle to symbolize giving her to another man who will control and dominate her from this point on because she's just a dumb girl, after all, and can't be expected to make decisions for herself. It's just another outdated ritual that's way past it's "use by" date. Ya wanna get married? Fine. Different races? Fine. Same genders? Fine. More than two of you? Fine. Just fill out these papers and drop them off at the local municipal building, and we'll call it done! Nobody else's business. Religion. Just another way to control people's lives and make them conform to your own chosen narrow-minded lifestyle. Sheesh.
When husband and me married 41 ya I sincerely believed I was a xian. Husband has always been an atheist (he grew up with his atheist grandmother and former JW grandfather). He accepted my wish to marry in a church. When we got kids I knew I wasn't a believer, so they luckily never got baptised. We had a welcome party for all of them.
When my daughter was born, my first wife (who was also a non-believer) and I decided to send her to a "christian" school for the first several years just so that she would develop an understanding of what so many ignorant people believe to be true. By the third grade when she was starting to parrot their superstitious bullshit, we moved her to a public school for the same reason, i.e. to expose her to other people and their beliefs. Suffice it to say, she became an atheist like her parents and as an adult, is grateful for the experience. It helped teach her to think for herself, to question authority, and not accept "official" dogma.
Sounds nice, but the legal questions arise. Which are the legal offspring of which bigamous pairing? If they separate how do you establish paternity without a search warrant to obtain DNA from the father? This would be a dradbeat dad's dream.
It's true the legal intricacies of a n-way equitable relationship have not been hammered out, but that can be done if there is a will to do so. While I know myself to be too insecure and jealous to make a polyamorous relationship work, it doesn't mean I see any good reason to prevent others from having one legally recognized.
I'm not saying that "common law" marriage (or whatever name you choose to give it) is infallible or without problems. I'm just saying that "religious" marriages are no better. The first can be resolved with some basic established official rules and regulations (or laws, whatever) while the latter is just another excuse at exclusion.
The constitution states no religious test. If the solemnization of a marriage is going to be determined by the government (especially if there is a criminal element attached [hellooooo, that’s nucking futs to make it a crime]), then the government cannot require a religious person to perform the ceremony, religious people can be allowed, but not required. One non-secular option is not enough, considering that option has a plethora of drawbacks for secular people.
The entire argument that a religious celebrant would “reasonably be expected to ensure the prerequisites to marriage are met and that the ceremony contains the necessary level of respect and solemnity without the need for significant involvement and oversight by the state.” Is laughable.
90% of the religious wedding traditions are ridiculous, and frankly quite demeaning to one party getting married. Giving away the bride being one of the most egregious, we are people who belong to themselves not their fathers or husbands. But Catholic ceremonies include the Eucharist, eating the flesh and blood of a human sacrifice is not respectful.
All that to say, the inclusion of religious nonsense has never made marriages last, or even weddings all that solemn. Religious ceremonies have presided over marriages that only lasted days, or even hours. The religious ceremonies have also allowed some rando weirdness from the couple, like cosplay or practical jokes. I’m not saying those things shouldn’t be allowed if the couple is all in on it, I’m just saying the argument that religious institutions are no guarantee of solemnity and respect. (An atheist woman’s perspective says religious ceremonies are the opposite of respectful toward the woman.)
Just because you make some small gesture towards being inclusive, doesn’t mean you are inclusive nor does it mean the law is constitutional. And if the law leads with a nod to Christianity specifically, it is clearly intended to benefit one religion over all others and non-religion.
And the MAGAt millions who are too stupid to recognize Trump Stupid when it's staring them right in the face. That's the kind of stupid that takes some doing.
You can have YOUR weddings in a church and solemnized by a priest/minister. But...and this is a big but...unless you have all the necessary LEGAL paperwork, your marriage will not be recognized as valid.
Is everybody deaf? He said someone (in this case, a prominent politician) should be shot for their opinion (in this case, on foreign policy), because it doesn't agree with his.
We already know he wants to do this crap. It’s not shocking. What a sad state of affairs that is, but it’s reality. This is only another in a long list of grievances and fascist talking for him.
Clock/radio already changed. All the other clocks that I rely on are automatically updated.
One thing I've noticed about signs is that several of the Trump signs are out in the middle of corn fields and not in someone's front yard. You don't know who the sign belongs to.
OT: Just went out to get some meds and dinner, and saw my "Cats for Kamala" sign was missing. I plan on contacting Bexar County Democrats in the morning to see if they have any spare Harris/Walz signs.
As a member of the committee to enact the project twenty-twenty-five project, I can assure you that all this flabbergast about who can and can not officiate a marriage is not worth worrying about. Women, you don't have to worry your pretty little heads about this. In the bright and joyous future, when you turn thirteen, you will automatically be married. You won't have to stress out about a wedding dress or booking a venue or getting a officiant, or even the hassle of choosing your life long mate. You will just go to bed as your father's daughter, and then wake up as your husband's wife. You don't have to worry about any of this. You might even wake up pregnant without ever having to hurt your little lady minds with trying to figure out what the limits of consent are. The future is bright.
It seems to this non-lawyer that by deciding which religious authorities are allowed to conduct a wedding, it is a clear violation of the First Amendment. Are not Hindus, Muslims, and Buddhists not allowed to conduct weddings within their faith? This is just another remnant of the entrenched Christian privilege that has been allowed to continue far too long.
Not only should Hindus, Muslims, and Buddhists be allowed their own traditions and ceremonies, they should ALSO be allowed to bypass them in favor of a secular ceremony, if they so choose.
Despite the fact that I suspect Texas doesn't want to admit that such people exist.
I've lived in Texas for some time now. There are two Texas's, rural and urban and they have little in common. A lot of people do not realize that two of the five largest cities in the U.S. are in Texas, and they're not full of knuckle-dragging morons.
A considerable part of the problem is that they have a knuckle-dragging moron by the name of Greg Abbott in the front office in Austin.
And he ain't helpin' matters.
It isn't limited to Abbott. Ken Paxton is a corrupt as they come, and Dan Patrick is a four-star religious nut case. They are kept in power by the rural folk.
And the bulk of the legislature isn't much better. The can pass a dozen constitutional amendments to control how the state's tax money can be spent, but they can't remove outdated and illegal provisions in state law or the constitution.
Agreed, and it's a damn shame because Texas is awesome.
I've lived in TX for a couple of years and visited family after they moved their with AMD (in Austin).
It is a place unto itself. I read a joke and told it to a friend who was from TX:
A father overheard his son asking the new neighbors if they were from Texas. When his son came home, the dad sat him down and said, "Son, I couldn't help but overhear you asking the new neighbors if they were from Texas. Don't you know, you're not supposed to do that. If they're from Texas, they'll tell you."
She laughed her ass off and agreed that that was indeed Texas mentality.
I live in the burbs of north Dallas. A lot of Texans do not consider Dallas to be part of Texas. Primarily because it's not full of knuckle dragging morons.
I remember some years ago, an atheist woman ran for office (Representative). She managed to pull in 25% of the votes. I was quite shocked that she got that much being an atheist and a woman.
I wonder how many of them are from out of state. Knuckle draggers massively complain about the influx of "Californians" changing things up, even people who aren't native to the state complain. (There are more people who have "moved" out of CA than have ever lived in CA.) They don't realize that their gov't is courting companies, particularly tech, and inducing them with tax benefits to move to their state. The people are just following their jobs.
We saw that right here in my immediate area when Toyota moved 4000 jobs from California to Plano.
Hey now, I drive by a Sikh Temple on my way to and from the office. Even see some guy with a turban and a long grey beard (ZZ top long) riding a bicycle to and from it many days.
Oh yes. I see the same thing, along with numerous mosques.
Oh, Texas knows they exist. They see non-whites and non-christians as invaders crossing the border in caravans, like in a game of Risk, there's a dotted line on the ground. They think viruses don't, only people do.
Hindus and Muslims fall under "a person who is an officer of a religious organization and who is authorized by the organization to conduct a marriage ceremony". The religious group overlooked would be unprogrammed meetings of the Society of Friends since they have no officiants whether for marriage or anything else (the couple marry each other at a meeting for worship and those present signing as witnesses).
I think they are. See my reply to CDBunch above. From my reading of Hemant's post, I think this is more of an atheist vs theist issue than a JudeoChristian vs. other theists + atheists issue.
Do you want to bet that that clause was an amendment to the original law?
Here in the UK, they are allowed to perform their religious ceremonies, but they lack legal standing, and a second, non-religious ceremony was performed as City Hall. Friends of ours did this.
In the US, that would mean men forgetting two anniversaries instead of one.
Interestingly, yesterday was our 55th wedding anniversary and it was my wife who forgot it. lol
My ex-wife forgot once and we made a bet. I won. (That's not why she's my ex.)
"𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘫𝘶𝘥𝘨𝘦 𝘴𝘢𝘪𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘭𝘢𝘸 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘴𝘦𝘤𝘶𝘭𝘢𝘳 𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘶𝘳𝘧𝘢𝘤𝘦. 𝘈𝘧𝘵𝘦𝘳 𝘢𝘭𝘭, 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘧𝘢𝘤𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘴𝘦𝘤𝘶𝘭𝘢𝘳 𝘫𝘶𝘥𝘨𝘦𝘴 𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥 𝘴𝘰𝘭𝘦𝘮𝘯𝘪𝘻𝘦 𝘢 𝘸𝘦𝘥𝘥𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘮𝘦𝘢𝘯𝘵 𝘪𝘵 𝘸𝘢𝘴𝘯’𝘵 𝘴𝘰𝘮𝘦 𝘱𝘳𝘰-𝘳𝘦𝘭𝘪𝘨𝘪𝘰𝘶𝘴 𝘭𝘢𝘸."
I'ma go out on a limb here and guess that the number of non-religious judges in Texas, active or retired, is so vanishingly tiny that their existence, while theoretically possible, is effectively irrelevant to the matter at hand. And I suspect I'm being exceedingly generous to the state.
They may as well be cryptids?
OT- Speaking of Tex𝘢𝘴𝘴: https://www.wonkette.com/p/a-pregnant-teenager-died-in-texas
Stories about people dying because of the Republican war on bodily autonomy are getting dangerously close to joining the "Day Ending in Y" club.
If only Nevaeh family and boyfriend could sue nabbott, plankton, halitosis, 3/5th, ofdrumpster, goresuck and beer pong man. All of them have Nevaeh blood on their hands.
And this is what happened to a conservative Christian who wasn't even seeking an abortion- she just needed to be treated like a patient instead of a radioactive hot potato, and both her life 𝘢𝘯𝘥 her pregnancy probably could have been saved.
The GQP won't even protect their own tribe. If you're not a cis/het rich white man, your life doesn't matter to these fuckers.
It is all about protecting the Patriarchy and the Oligarchy. Women are supposed to be pregnant and subservient. POC as well.
"Dangerously close?!?" From where I sit, we're all but there.
Priests and ministers love this law. It means more work for them.
Pardon me for sounding like a broken record, but marriage FAR predates the 3 Abrahamic faiths. They didn't invent the institution. They sure as shit don't own it.
They stole it ages ago, so now they "own" it by default and it is much better now you know. Right?
You’re trying to take what I’ve rightfully stolen.
I would add that other than a ministerial license, the government in Texas (or elsewhere) marriage should have no role.
Um... excuse me, Judge. The law specifically calls out Christian and Jewish faiths. That sounds like endorsement to me.
You weren't supposed to notice that!
It's not any sort of endorsment! We allow BOTH kinds of religions!
JUST like they have BOTH kinds of music: Country AND Western! 🤦♂️
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vS-zEH8YmiM
Heavy metal AND everything else!
They also include an "other" in a third section.
The first amendment says: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; "
That sounds to me like the Texas law is attempting to establish religion. Any religion.
I've felt for some time now that all marriages should, legally, be the same; and only require filling out some paperwork and turning it in so far as the government is concerned. I'd be okay with a smallish fee to cover the government's work keeping track, and maybe some testing for public health reasons. Generally, no celebrant, cleric, priest, or other official of any kind should be needed for marriage so far as the government is concerned, and the paperwork is only needed to get whatever tax or other legal benefits apply to marriage.
After that, if people want to pretend their ceremonial shenanigans were important, fine. They can go throw their little party, and invite their guests, and whatever else they might think they need to do. If they want to throw a massive party at the local religious building for all their friends and family to bring them presents and get roaring drunk, sure. The ceremonial aspects of a marriage should never have any legal meaning, they're just a social norm that most people elect to follow so that the community knows they've been married, which should make zero difference under the law. The government should not care who performs the ceremonial duties, only that the people involved are consenting and understand the legal fallout of their decision.
Good luck to CFI and Mr. McCutchan on this one. Texas is apparently the Busybody State, and isn't likely to give up without a fight.
That's how it works here, you can have a religious wedding ceremony but it has no legal value. Only the wedding performed at the city/town hall count.
Technically, the religious ceremony has no actual legal meaning here, but the state greatly restricts non-religious celebrants/officials who need to sign the paperwork. AIUI, a "ceremony" is required to make it official, even if it's just the couple, 2 witnesses and a celebrant to attest to the fact that the couple said 'I do'
So why do Christians and Jews get unique mention and everyone else gets an "other"?
They are the only ones that counts. Others are evil you know
And one of 'em will only count until the other one decides they don't need the smokescreen anymore. As I've said in the past... Jews should be wary; that hyphen in "Judeo-Christian" is attached with explosive bolts.
It is the view of some Christians that the term "Judeo-Christian" refers to the pre-Jesus Old Testament part of the Bible being adopted into Christianity - that it's already non-inclusive of living Jews.
Why does Texas --- where men are men and the sheep are nervous --- need to have only religious people performing marriages? It's not that this is any guarantee as to how long such couplings will --- or should --- last, i.e. "Magic Sky Daddy say y'all is now wed in His Blessed Name, and you is tied together furever and ever in this Holy Bond(age) and can never part until one of you kills the other. Amen." What the hell does religion have to do with matrimony anyway? Anyone (including the State) should be able to "bless" the union of two (or more) people who hopefully/foolishly want to spend the rest of their lives together. It's like the father walking the daughter down the aisle to symbolize giving her to another man who will control and dominate her from this point on because she's just a dumb girl, after all, and can't be expected to make decisions for herself. It's just another outdated ritual that's way past it's "use by" date. Ya wanna get married? Fine. Different races? Fine. Same genders? Fine. More than two of you? Fine. Just fill out these papers and drop them off at the local municipal building, and we'll call it done! Nobody else's business. Religion. Just another way to control people's lives and make them conform to your own chosen narrow-minded lifestyle. Sheesh.
When husband and me married 41 ya I sincerely believed I was a xian. Husband has always been an atheist (he grew up with his atheist grandmother and former JW grandfather). He accepted my wish to marry in a church. When we got kids I knew I wasn't a believer, so they luckily never got baptised. We had a welcome party for all of them.
When my daughter was born, my first wife (who was also a non-believer) and I decided to send her to a "christian" school for the first several years just so that she would develop an understanding of what so many ignorant people believe to be true. By the third grade when she was starting to parrot their superstitious bullshit, we moved her to a public school for the same reason, i.e. to expose her to other people and their beliefs. Suffice it to say, she became an atheist like her parents and as an adult, is grateful for the experience. It helped teach her to think for herself, to question authority, and not accept "official" dogma.
Oh, and one more thing. If you just want to call yourselves married and don't want anyone else's approval, that's fine, too. Have a nice day.
Still need to file the paperwork, or you have to sue/be sued, and *then* file the paperwork after claiming common law marriage.
Sounds nice, but the legal questions arise. Which are the legal offspring of which bigamous pairing? If they separate how do you establish paternity without a search warrant to obtain DNA from the father? This would be a dradbeat dad's dream.
It's true the legal intricacies of a n-way equitable relationship have not been hammered out, but that can be done if there is a will to do so. While I know myself to be too insecure and jealous to make a polyamorous relationship work, it doesn't mean I see any good reason to prevent others from having one legally recognized.
I agree, but I would feel sorry for the divorce court judges.
Well, hopefully, lawmakers would have already set the guidelines before someone filed for divorce.
I'm not saying that "common law" marriage (or whatever name you choose to give it) is infallible or without problems. I'm just saying that "religious" marriages are no better. The first can be resolved with some basic established official rules and regulations (or laws, whatever) while the latter is just another excuse at exclusion.
The constitution states no religious test. If the solemnization of a marriage is going to be determined by the government (especially if there is a criminal element attached [hellooooo, that’s nucking futs to make it a crime]), then the government cannot require a religious person to perform the ceremony, religious people can be allowed, but not required. One non-secular option is not enough, considering that option has a plethora of drawbacks for secular people.
The entire argument that a religious celebrant would “reasonably be expected to ensure the prerequisites to marriage are met and that the ceremony contains the necessary level of respect and solemnity without the need for significant involvement and oversight by the state.” Is laughable.
90% of the religious wedding traditions are ridiculous, and frankly quite demeaning to one party getting married. Giving away the bride being one of the most egregious, we are people who belong to themselves not their fathers or husbands. But Catholic ceremonies include the Eucharist, eating the flesh and blood of a human sacrifice is not respectful.
All that to say, the inclusion of religious nonsense has never made marriages last, or even weddings all that solemn. Religious ceremonies have presided over marriages that only lasted days, or even hours. The religious ceremonies have also allowed some rando weirdness from the couple, like cosplay or practical jokes. I’m not saying those things shouldn’t be allowed if the couple is all in on it, I’m just saying the argument that religious institutions are no guarantee of solemnity and respect. (An atheist woman’s perspective says religious ceremonies are the opposite of respectful toward the woman.)
Just because you make some small gesture towards being inclusive, doesn’t mean you are inclusive nor does it mean the law is constitutional. And if the law leads with a nod to Christianity specifically, it is clearly intended to benefit one religion over all others and non-religion.
IF you ever wonder about the value of an education, watch an Obama speech, then a trump speech.
Hell, watch a 𝘉𝘶𝘴𝘩 𝘑𝘳. speech and then a Trump speech. There ain't no brand of stupid like Trump Stupid.
And the MAGAt millions who are too stupid to recognize Trump Stupid when it's staring them right in the face. That's the kind of stupid that takes some doing.
To Christians:
You can have YOUR weddings in a church and solemnized by a priest/minister. But...and this is a big but...unless you have all the necessary LEGAL paperwork, your marriage will not be recognized as valid.
Just saying.
You cannot lie!
OT: Yeah, I'm early AGAIN ... but this is intolerable: Trump suggests Liz Cheney should face firing squad for her foreign policy stance
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/trump-suggests-liz-cheney-should-face-firing-squad-her-foreign-policy-stance-2024-11-01/
Convicted felon Cadet Bone Spurs says what?
Man who sold classified information to our enemies says what?!?
Man who said those who fight for our country were "suckers" and "losers" said what???
Man who believed foreign authoritarian leader over his own intelligence agencies said what?
Man who said Hitler "did some good things" and he wished his generals were more like Hitler's.
Is everybody deaf? He said someone (in this case, a prominent politician) should be shot for their opinion (in this case, on foreign policy), because it doesn't agree with his.
We already know he wants to do this crap. It’s not shocking. What a sad state of affairs that is, but it’s reality. This is only another in a long list of grievances and fascist talking for him.
Yes, but if someone calls him a name it's nasty!
OT: Commiseration on the clock change tonight for the U.S.
OOT: I was able to get a replacement 'Cats for Kamala sign' (different design) and car magnets for Harris and Allred.
At 2 AM we turn back clocks to 1AM.
At 2 AM we turn back clocks to 1AM.
At 2 AM we turn back clocks to 1AM.
I think I am caught in a loop.
Wasn't that yesterday? Or Tomorrow?
Sunday November 3 at 2 AM.
October 27th for me.
US went to first Nov. Sunday because of Halloween trick or treat Oct. 31.
Clock/radio already changed. All the other clocks that I rely on are automatically updated.
One thing I've noticed about signs is that several of the Trump signs are out in the middle of corn fields and not in someone's front yard. You don't know who the sign belongs to.
Maybe it's an alien crap circle.
😂😂
THANK YOU SO MUCH!!! Ater days of messing with AV fuckups, I need a laugh.
*Bow*
Around here they're not so shy. And I've seen a lot more Trump signs than I have Harris signs.
Fear is definitely a factor
Stalks of corn are a traditional MAGA constituency.
Perhaps you should invest in a camera, so you can prosecute the arseholes who took your sign. Almost certainly from the party of Laura Norder.
I'm pretty sure, they won't spend taxpayer money over a $15 sign.
The most a camera gets me is a screenshot I could post around the neighborhood, and I've considered it.
Send the photo to primeyes. /s
Facebook? That sometimes gets results.
Deleted my account. Didn’t have much of a network anyway.
OT: Just went out to get some meds and dinner, and saw my "Cats for Kamala" sign was missing. I plan on contacting Bexar County Democrats in the morning to see if they have any spare Harris/Walz signs.
As a member of the committee to enact the project twenty-twenty-five project, I can assure you that all this flabbergast about who can and can not officiate a marriage is not worth worrying about. Women, you don't have to worry your pretty little heads about this. In the bright and joyous future, when you turn thirteen, you will automatically be married. You won't have to stress out about a wedding dress or booking a venue or getting a officiant, or even the hassle of choosing your life long mate. You will just go to bed as your father's daughter, and then wake up as your husband's wife. You don't have to worry about any of this. You might even wake up pregnant without ever having to hurt your little lady minds with trying to figure out what the limits of consent are. The future is bright.