A federal judge just struck down one of Mississippi's most disgustingly bigoted law. The law would make pre-martial sex illegal, ban same-sex marriage, and would deny the existence of transgender people.
Way To Go ! !
Individual rights > state rights
Haha, another liberal lying about what a bill actually does to make ppl mad at "evil" republicans
Look up "House Bill 1523". It says sex is reserved for only married people.
It doesn't make it illegal tho, and besides, I actually agree with that
Why should someone's sex life be your business or the government's business?
I was just saying its for marriage, not that it should be illegal
"It says sex is reserved for only married people."
It says that but you didn't understand the bill. It protects private citizens from being forced to act against their deeply held religious beliefs. I.e. The bakers in Oregon that were sued.
Where does it say anything about making premarital sex illegal or about transgenders?
Look up House Bill 1523.
Ok just read it. You clearly did NOT. The bill simply protects private citizens' rights to freedom of religion, including not being forced to sell flowers or cakes for a same sex marriage etc. It has literally nothing to do with banning same sex marriage or anything to do with transgenders.
Nope I've read. The bill states that marriage is between a man and a woman, sex is reserved for marriage, and that transgender people don't exist. If passed, public officials could have used this law to deny service to gays, and couples who have pre-martial sex
The bill states that private individuals believe that marriage is between a man and a woman and that the Gov't should not coerce them to take actions that violate those beliefs. You're not understanding the bill at all.
I think the fact this debate between you guys is a problem in itself. Not that y'all are arguing, but that there is room for debate. If a bill is not abundantly clear, it leaves exactly what is happening to happen. It gives the state the ability to say, "that's not what we meant". Bills and Laws need to be made crystal clear so there is no debate as to what had been out into effect.
I've read the bill and it is abundantly clear. It spells out everything. I think the real problem is that this person has not read it but is taking only what they heard as fact.
I had heard about the ruling regarding same-sex couples adopting - I'm all for that, of course.
I don't see anything in the article (and hadn't heard about it elsewhere yet) about premarital sex or transgenders. Did I miss something?
Thanks for the link; I'll take a look at it when I get a chance later. (Looks a bit long to go through it right now.)
I'm always inclined to believe these extrapolations are a bit distorted from what a bill actually says, any chance you can specify what bill it was? Of course, of those implications are accurate then shutting it down was a great success. I'm just always skeptical of biased interpretation
It was HB-1523 unless I'm mistaken.
I have that same skepticism. I like to read it for myself. I do think this was a good ruling.