"If you care about the shaping of society, if you care about righteous laws, if you care about whether unborn human life is going to be defended or expended, if you care about the definition of marriage, guess what? You're political."
@SenWarren Government funded childcare has been proven to be one of the largest fraud schemes in America that fraudsters take advantage of.
Let Elon keep his money (that he worked for) and protect our dollars before asking for more money from ANYONE
“I’m very sad I can’t win anything. Here — trade me to the 110-point Wild, the back to back defending cup champs, or the team up 2-1 in the Finals.”
What a loser.
I’m often asked: When we overturn gay marriage, is interracial marriage next?
Nope. Here’s why.
Interracial marriage and same-sex marriage are not the same.
In Loving v. Virginia, the Supreme Court struck down racist marriage bans, reinforcing the basis of husband-wife marriage, not redefining it. The Court removed an illicit barrier that had nothing to do with the meaning or purpose of procreative marriage.
Obergefell v. Hodges did something very different. It created a new “fundamental right” to a same-sex marriage license, something absent from the Constitution’s text, history, and tradition. Because it departed from our legal tradition rather than conforming to it, Obergefell remains open to challenge.
But the differences are not just legal. The outcomes for children are opposite as well.
In an interracial marriage, children remain connected to both of the adults to whom they have a natural right. They are raised by the mother and father responsible for their existence and identity. Nothing about interracial marriage requires a child to lose a parent.
Same-sex marriage does.
Children raised by same-sex couples are necessarily separated from at least one biological parent. They are denied a relationship with half, and sometimes all, of their genetic heritage. They lose either a mother or a father.
Reversing Obergefell would have no impact on Loving. Interracial marriage remains legally secure because Loving upheld the historic understanding of marriage while removing a racist barrier.
Restoring the man-woman meaning of marriage protects what matters most to children: their mother and father.
Sure, but the book sets the line. Are you saying sportsbooks intentionally set lines that systematically remove their own edge? Because if so, that sounds like a sportsbook problem.
You’d be better off just embracing your actual role: a parasitic goblin whose job is to extract maximum value from customers, even if it destroys their lives, while simultaneously banning anyone with the slightest chance of showing a profit.
This is how all government spending works.
“Free diapers” just means money is laundered to enrich political allies. Sure, some people get low quality diapers at 3x the cost. But more people get rich.
“Free healthcare” is just the same. Political allies will get wealthy while everyone gets low quality “free” healthcare at 5x the cost.
how do you explain to these idiots that a program paying a 500% markup on diapers so that the nonprofit executives can have nice salaries for work an amazon delivery guy can do better is spiritually the same policy as a tax cut only for rich people
My hottest sports take is that if your stadium was funded by tax payers your games should be on free, network TV.
Yes, I'm annoyed that I have to buy 3 streaming services and cable to watch the Spurs playoff games.