South Carolina now has its own Idiot's thread

[billy.pilgrim]

After all, logic does travel in the back seat.

https://thinkprogress.org/south-carolin ... 1c518ca25/

"According to H. 4949, a “parody marriage” is “any form of marriage that does not involve one man and one woman.” It proposes that “the State of South Carolina shall no longer respect, endorse, or recognize any form of parody marriage policy because parody marriage policies are nonsecular.”

And we fer sure wouldn't want no marriages being religious.

Here it gets better

"Only marriages between a man and a woman would continue to be recognized “because such marriage policies are secular, accomplishing nonreligious objectives.”


And now, even better


"Why are “parody marriages” nonsecular and different-sex marriages secular? According to the bill, “all forms of parody marriage and all self-asserted sex-based identity narratives and sexual orientations that fail to check out the human design are part of the religion of Secular Humanism.” In other words, everyone who isn’t heterosexual is supposedly part of Secular Humanism.

Because the United States Supreme Court respects Secular Humanism as a religion, the bill argues that recognizing same-sex couples’ marriages is thus an endorsement of that religion in violation of the Constitution’s Establishment Clause."

Lesson learned

Same sex couple = religion

Marriage by a human to a lawnmower = religion

Marriage at the Baptist church according to god's requirements = not religion

So simple, all gay people are violating our Constitution.

[O Really]

Yet another venture into the far reaches of lunacy. How do these idiots manage to even live long enough to get elected to office? Shouldn't they be in a managed living place somewhere?

I do have mixed opinion on the coverage some proposed bills get, though. Time was, if something like this was reported at all, it would be under a "Stupid Legislative Bills" list. Now I guess there's at least a small chance it could pass. But reporting every ridiculous proposal does, IMNVHO, have somewhat of a "cry wolf" effect, dulling the impact of realistically passable wild and crazy ideas.

[Vrede too]

6 sponsors from the 2-1 majority party give it more news credibility than the typical wingnuttery.

Leaving aside the idiot opinions and utter failures in logic by the group of GOP South Carolina state lawmakers -

Because the United States Supreme Court respects Secular Humanism as a religion, the bill argues that recognizing same-sex couples’ marriages is thus an endorsement of that religion in violation of the Constitution’s Establishment Clause."

- is Commandment-level sinful false witness.

Secular humanism

Torcaso v. Watkins

The phrase "secular humanism" became prominent after it was used in the United States Supreme Court case Torcaso v. Watkins. In the 1961 decision, Justice Hugo Black commented in a footnote, "Among religions in this country which do not teach what would generally be considered a belief in the existence of God are Buddhism, Taoism, Ethical Culture, Secular Humanism, and others."

footnote, 1961

Peloza v. Capistrano School District

The implication in Justice Black's footnote that secular humanism is a religion has been seized upon by religious opponents of the teaching of evolution, who have made the argument that teaching evolution amounts to teaching a religious idea. The claim that secular humanism could be considered a religion for legal purposes was examined by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in Peloza v. Capistrano School District, 37 F.3d 517 (9th Cir. 1994), cert. denied, 515 U.S. 1173 (1995). In this case, a science teacher argued that, by requiring him to teach evolution, his school district was forcing him to teach the "religion" of secular humanism. The Court responded, "We reject this claim because neither the Supreme Court, nor this circuit, has ever held that evolutionism or Secular Humanism are 'religions' for Establishment Clause purposes." The Supreme Court refused to review the case.

The decision in a subsequent case, Kalka v. Hawk et al., offered this commentary:

The Court's statement in Torcaso does not stand for the proposition that humanism, no matter in what form and no matter how practiced, amounts to a religion under the First Amendment. The Court offered no test for determining what system of beliefs qualified as a "religion" under the First Amendment. The most one may read into the Torcaso footnote is the idea that a particular non-theistic group calling itself the "Fellowship of Humanity" qualified as a religious organization under California law.

unchallenged ruling, 1995

[O Really]

6 sponsors from the 2-1 majority party give it more news credibility than the typical wingnuttery.

Well, yeah. And in these days, most anything can happen in a place like South Carolina. Or actually any other state ending in "lina." Or, unfortunately, most any Red state at all.

[O Really]

At least they have priorities - gay marriage, abortion, baggy pants...
https://www.inquisitr.com/4796145/south ... -up-to-75/

[JTA]

It looks really dumb, and I'm totally gonna judge a person that wears their pants like that and probably laugh at them behind their back, but at the same time I guess as long as everything is covered up, it's none of my business how a person dresses.

Seems like this is big government intrusion into personal lives.

[Vrede too]

... it's none of my business how a person dresses....

Good thing.

[billy.pilgrim]

wtf

Nikki Haley says Warnock should be deported at Walker rally

This is the headline, but it wasn't explained in the article other than admitting the SC maga lady said it.

“Legal immigrants are more patriotic than the leftists these days,” Haley said at the Hiram, Ga., rally. “They worked to come into America and they love America. They want the laws followed in America. So the only person we need to make sure we deport is Warnock.”

[neoplacebo]

That's my purple jacket. And a girl friend of mine made that sparkly bow tie while telling me that she was going to tell me in a letter what she wanted me to do to her. I told her I have stamps.