May 10, 2016 1:51 am at 1:51 am #617693
So you don’t have to vote for Hillary or Donald.May 10, 2016 2:07 am at 2:07 am #1152286
Wasted vote. Vote for the lesser of the two evils.May 10, 2016 2:09 am at 2:09 am #1152287Dave HirschParticipant
I never voted Republican because the candidate had an R next to his or her name. I voted for conservative principles. Unfortunately, the Democratic and Republican parties will have a pathological liar who touts a socialist agenda as the nominee.
Some will say that one must vote to choose between the lesser of two evils (Hillary ‘Suha’ Clinton in this case). They would choose between Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini, Josef Stalin and Josef Mengele, David Duke and Louis Farrakhan, but I will be able to say that I had no part of my personal destruction.
I will not support someone who wants to stifle American jobs by raising taxes, increasing the minimum wage, dictate corporations or spend in order to print more money (or worse, default on U.S. debt).
I will vote for any third party candidate who draws and contrast and introduces conservative principles to the national stage.May 10, 2016 2:37 am at 2:37 am #1152288
Dave: If it were certain that one of either Hitler or Mussolini were the only possible winners, I’d vote for Mussolini who is clearly a lesser evil than Hitler, rather than waste the vote on a third-party candidate with no chance – thus making it more likely for Hitler to win.May 10, 2016 2:41 am at 2:41 am #1152289
In this contest Trump is the lesser evil.May 10, 2016 2:47 am at 2:47 am #1152290akupermaParticipant
In the American system, a third party votes is usually the same as abstaining. If you are a conservative that would be dumb since Trump (who is basically a middle of the road, centrist Republican with a loud mouth) is clearly preferable to Clinton (who is very far to the left, and whose party is even further to the left).
The only time a third party candidate won was in 1860 but that year both parties split so there was a four way race (won by a candidate with under 40% of the popular vote, and BTW a civil war ensued).May 10, 2016 3:34 am at 3:34 am #1152291147Participant
Even in Britain where there is a 3rd party:- Liberal Democrats, voting for them is largely a lost vote, as they barely have any seats in Parliament:- 8 out of 650 seats,& even in the last parliament with 23% of the popular vote, they only had 57 out of 650 seats. … Then again:- Unless you reside in a battleground state, what difference does it make? whom you vote for.May 10, 2016 4:04 am at 4:04 am #1152292
I don’t understand how it can be that nobody votes for them because it’s a wasted vote because nobody votes for them.May 10, 2016 4:08 am at 4:08 am #1152293
Battleground states may be redefined for this cycle unlike others.May 10, 2016 4:55 am at 4:55 am #1152294Sam2Participant
Joseph: Sure. If you live in Utah a Libertarian vote might not be wasted. Gary Johnson may very well carry that state.May 10, 2016 4:56 am at 4:56 am #1152295
If you live in NY, or in most states, or in any state most of the time, voting for anyone–be it Rep or Dem–won’t effect anything either.May 10, 2016 5:00 am at 5:00 am #1152296
Churchill defended his support for Stalin ym”s during WW2 by saying that if Hitler ym”s had invaded Hell he would have at least made a favorable reference to the Devil in the House of Commons. After WW2 he was a staunch supporter of the Cold War.
In any case, there is no such thing as a wasted vote. It makes a statement, most importantly to Hashem. Otherwise, a Republican in a deep blue state or a Democrat in a deep red state should also stay home.May 10, 2016 10:42 am at 10:42 am #1152297
If you don’t vote you deserve what you get.
That said the time to get involved is NOT on election day in November. If you want a true say in who the candidate of your preferred party will be you must get involved locally in the party. Be on a ward, precinct, town party committee. Attend caucuses, get elected to the City, County State Party Convention. Work and campaign for candidates.
Then you have a say. Waiting until you are presented with 2 party endorsed candidates you dislike is too late.
I am a member of my town Democratic Party Committee. I hold a minor, non paid elected local office. I am a delegate to State Representative, State Senate and State conventions this year. I have a say in who the candidate will be. This year we are taking the party endorsement away from a state representative who has not done a good job for our town (it is a multi-town district). The State Rep will be forced to run a primary campaign against the newly endorsed candidate. This Rep has aspirations of Statewide office in 2 years, my action as an involved party member may stop it.
@akuperma Secretary Clinton is not a Liberal, she is a Centrist who is preaching to Liberal Dems to offset Sen. Sander’s appeal. I am a Liberal and she is far to the right of my philosophy. Sanders is also not a Liberal, he is a Socialist>>far to the left of true Liberal ideology.
Trump on the other hand is not a Conservative. He is an opportunist happy to take every handout offered to business by Congress and state legislatures.May 10, 2016 12:45 pm at 12:45 pm #1152298yehudayonaParticipant
As sdd said, in most states, it hardly matters for whom you vote. The electoral college essentially overrides the idea of “one man (person), one vote.” If I lived in a swing state, I might vote for the lesser of the two evils, but since it’s unlikely than my home state will be a swing state this year, I’m planning to cast a protest vote.May 10, 2016 1:05 pm at 1:05 pm #1152299mw13Participant
+1. Protest vote, here we come. If the neither-Trump-nor-Clinton movement doesn’t coalesce around a third-party candidate, I’m thinking of writing in Paul Ryan…May 10, 2016 1:22 pm at 1:22 pm #1152300
I agree with rebyidd
Joseph, one never knows who is the lesser of the two evils are especially the way Donald is going nowMay 10, 2016 2:03 pm at 2:03 pm #1152301feivelParticipant
RebYid, read the Berra Papers, specifically the commentary on the supposed “restaurant paradox” for further elucidation.May 10, 2016 3:56 pm at 3:56 pm #1152302
CTlawuer, a liberal in the American context (the European/Israeli context it is more like a libertarian) is someone who wants integrated schools in Mississippi, integrated neighborhoods in Mississippi (remember the Forest Hills controversy in NYC) and freely spends other people’s money. Clinton is worse than an opportunist. She is a liar, a crook, and an enemy of Jewish rights to all of Eretz Yisrael. She was also an incompetent Sec of State who was complicit in the murders of American diplomats in Benghazi. Trump is definitely not a conservative (see Russell Kirk’s “Ten Conservative Principles”) and I have many problems with his campaign but at least his Mideast advisers have close ties to the settlement movement. As a successful businessman he hopefully will be able to pick the right people for the right jobs, delegate powers and be a great communicator.May 10, 2016 5:10 pm at 5:10 pm #1152303
Actually this Liberal wants integrated neighborhoods in all 50 states, not just Mississippi. I Have liberal social values, that doesn’t mean I advocate paying for all these rights with tax dollars. I’d never want my wife or daughters to have an abortion. In fact as the adoptive father of 2 children I would not have received them if their bio-moms had abortions. That doesn’t mean just because the Supreme Court legalized a woman’s right to choose I believe the Government should pay for it.
I don’t know how old you are. I’m old enough to have lived before the enactment of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. I remember when it was legal in the USA to refuse employment to Jews and Blacks as well as housing. Liberals changed this. I’m proud to be one.
I stated that Secretary Clinton was not a Liberal. Mr. Trump is not a Conservative. I do not trust his judgment in in choosing advisers. Choosing Christie as head of a transition team when Trump has not been elected is the height of arrogance, and instills no faith in Trump’s choices.
I am not an Israeli, I do not base my vote solely on potential treatment of the settlements. There are many things higher on my list. It’s a matter of priorities. As someone whose family now stretched nine generations in the USA these priorities are different than yours.May 10, 2016 8:02 pm at 8:02 pm #1152304
CTLAWYER -“she is a Centrist who is preaching to Liberal Dems to offset Sen. Sander’s appeal. I am a Liberal and she is far to the right of my philosophy”
Stop with the lies! You’re calling her a Centrist and she wants Gay marriage?!?May 10, 2016 8:16 pm at 8:16 pm #1152305
Trump has no respect for marriage at all!May 10, 2016 8:58 pm at 8:58 pm #1152306
Yidd23 -“Trump has no respect for marriage at all!”
Actually he keeps the Torah version of marriage!
Do you know what that is?May 10, 2016 9:23 pm at 9:23 pm #1152307
Marrying a pretty model, and then finding another and divorcing the first as soon as she starts aging?May 10, 2016 9:32 pm at 9:32 pm #1152308
I’m a Liberal and Secretary Clinton is to my right. Senator Sanders is to my left. Without a Liberal Party and card carrying members adhering to a party platform, the word liberal means different things to different people.
I resent you calling me a liar. I gave opinions. You state “she wants Gay marriage.” I don’t want any part of a gay marriage for myself, BUT I support extending civil rights and opportunities to all US citizens without discriminating on the basis of sexual preferences. Civil marriage is a contract between 2 adults and it gives certain tax and other benefits. It has nothing to do with religious marriage and the accompanying rules.
I practice family law. Before CT made same sex marriage legal, I had to arrange for a same sex couple who had been together 40 years to become an adopted parent and an adopted adult so that the partner could be involved in the partner’s medical decisions. The partner was dying of cancer. There were no relatives. The hospital and doctors would not take direction and the couple had a civil union. Luckily adult adoption was legal. The partner with cancer lived long enough for our State Supreme Court to change our law in 2008. They married in the hospital. The cancer victim died 3 months later and the survivor now that the Federal law has changed is getting a spousal Social Security benefit.
Just because a civil right is extended to a group, doesn’t mean you have to make use of it.
In the 1950s, my parents couldn’t buy a house in certain neighborhoods because they were Jewish. My brother was rejected by Princeton in 1962>>>told the Jew Quota was filled. It didn’t matter, he went to Harvard.
In 1961, I attended a public school for 4 months due to a medical problem that required I be 1 block from the hospital for twice daily treatments. I resented the forced recitation of Christian prayer. When the Madeline Murray O’Hare group of Atheists won their battle in the Supreme Court, prayer in public school was made illegal. I’m a Liberal who supports this decision. Most in the Hareidi/Yeshiva community will never deal with this, but the vast majority of American Jews go to public schools and this made life more tenable.May 10, 2016 9:43 pm at 9:43 pm #1152309feivelParticipant
“You’re calling her a Centrist and she wants Gay marriage?!?”
Nowadays that’s a centrist. Pretty much a generally accepted attitude.
If this dive isn’t halted, it’s not ludicrous to expect that eventually heterosexual marriage will be considered disgustingMay 10, 2016 9:49 pm at 9:49 pm #1152310nfgo3Member
Re CTLAWYER’s comment beginning “Health/I’m a liberal and ….” Well said. If a frum Jew does not want to marry someone of the same sex, he/she does not have to. A lot of commenters on this site overlook that simple fact, and many others.
Jews, especially the frum, have benefitted greatly from the liberalism of the last 85 years in the US.May 10, 2016 9:49 pm at 9:49 pm #1152311
Heterosexual marriage will be considered an extreme right-wing fanatical position, Feivel.May 11, 2016 1:21 am at 1:21 am #1152312
Yes! According to beis hillel it is!May 11, 2016 1:23 am at 1:23 am #1152313
Thank you for recognizing what I wrote and not just being incensed that I admit to being a Liberal.
The USA is a wonderful place for Jews who choose not to live in EY. The protections we have are because of liberal changes to the status quo.
I have seen and owned properties whose deeds issued at late as 1963 precluded Jewish ownership. I have been discriminated against because of religion LEGALLY before 1964. I have a female relative who needed a prescription of birth control pills for medical reasons, not prevention of pregnancy–she was 11 years old at the time. Before the Supreme Court decision in Griswold v. Connecticut in 1970 that was illegal in Connecticut.
Conservatives wanted to keep things the way they were: in the hands of White, male Protestants. I’d rather a female Dem I have personally known since 1970 (when she was attending Yale Law School) than the grandson of a German Protestant immigrant with questionable business dealings and 3 marriages and some bankruptcies.May 11, 2016 1:48 am at 1:48 am #1152314☕ DaasYochid ☕Participant
The U.S. was a wonderful place for Jews to live before toeivah and retzichah were glorified.
The fact that if the old time conservatives had gotten their way and nothing had changed we would have continued to be discriminated against is not an excuse to modify our values chas v’shalom.
We are not supposed to have liberal values and we are not supposed to have conservative values. We are supposed to have Torah values.May 11, 2016 2:28 am at 2:28 am #1152315
CTLAWYER -“The USA is a wonderful place for Jews who choose not to live in EY. The protections we have are because of liberal changes to the status quo.
I have been discriminated against because of religion LEGALLY before 1964″
Unfortunately discrimination is still rampid, just they learned to hide it better!
“I don’t want any part of a gay marriage for myself, BUT I support extending civil rights and opportunities to all US citizens without discriminating on the basis of sexual preferences. Civil marriage is a contract between 2 adults and it gives certain tax and other benefits. It has nothing to do with religious marriage and the accompanying rules.”
I don’t know how religious or knowledgeable you are, but believing that causes destruction of the world! Some say the flood in the Bible came about because Gays made Kesubos (marriage contracts) one with another!May 11, 2016 2:37 am at 2:37 am #1152316
Yidd23 -“Marrying a pretty model, and then finding another and divorcing the first as soon as she starts aging?”
Obviously you don’t know the Dinim of marriage by Goyim!
How about getting some Torah knowledge?May 11, 2016 2:56 am at 2:56 am #1152317
The Clintons and the Trumps are two sides of the same coin.May 11, 2016 3:14 am at 3:14 am #1152318
What Donald did shows bad character.May 11, 2016 3:34 am at 3:34 am #1152319
I am appalled by CTlawyer and nfgo’s statements.May 11, 2016 3:36 am at 3:36 am #1152321
I don’t want any part of a gay marriage for myself, BUT I support extending civil rights and opportunities to all US citizens without discriminating on the basis of sexual preferences. Civil marriage is a contract between 2 adults and it gives certain tax and other benefits. It has nothing to do with religious marriage and the accompanying rules.
It has nothing to do with marriage, either.May 11, 2016 4:31 am at 4:31 am #1152322Burnt SteakParticipant
CTLawyer – It would be better if there would be more people like you who think things through and make a thoughtful decision no matter which side you support. Personally I think that neither presidential candidate has a strong understanding of how the economy works.
I have major issues with both candidates. Hillary is trying to say that one of her main triumphs is foreign policy, while she defiantly has the experience, President Obama may be worst at Foreign Policy (which Hillary has played a major role).
Trump is too radical for me and is not very consistent with what he says. I have no idea what to make of him. I need more time to analyze the candidates to know who I will support in this one.
There are 2 cases pending against Trump and the FBI is currently investigating Hillary. There may be different candidates representing each party. The one thing I have learned from the primary season is to not rule out any possibilities.
In certain states the local elections will matter more than the presidential election. No matter who you support in the Presidential race don’t throw away your vote. Make an educated decision for each of the candidates in each race.May 11, 2016 6:04 am at 6:04 am #1152323
CTlawyer., FYI, the Halacha sometimes requires us to discriminate. For example, a Jew who has his own business must prefer Jews in hiring. On the other hand, if the business must be open on Shabbat and Yom Tov he must seek a gentile partner. As foir neighborhoods, I personally do not understand why a Jew would want tol ive among anti-Semites. Besides, there was far less assimilation when people lived in tethnic neighborhoods. Even Jewish Communists married other Jews. Not to mention that “equal opportunity” laws gave rise to Affirmative Action – the exact opposite. So too, gay “rights” is giving way to government compulsion to participate in these “weddings”.
In any case, it is instructive to read the words of Ludwig von Mises, himself the victim of anti-Jewish discrimination:
Elsewhere he writes:
“The market does not directly prevent anybody from arbitrarily inflicting harm on his fellow citizens; it only puts a penalty upon such conduct. The shopkeeper is free to be rude to his customers provided he is ready to bear the consequences. The consumers are free to boycott a purveyor provided they are ready to pay the costs. What impels every man to the utmost exertion in the service of his fellow men and curbs innate tendencies toward arbitrariness and malice is, in the market, not compulsion and coercion on the part of gardeess, hangmen, and penal courts; it is self-interest.”
As for questionable business dealings, what about all of the Clintons’ dealings? Not to mention the fact that Hillary was fired from the Watergate committee for unethical behavior. was an accomplice to the murder of American diplomats, etc. editedMay 11, 2016 10:52 am at 10:52 am #1152324
The government can’t compel anyone to participate in a same sex marriage. The only participants are the two people getting married. The clerk who issues the license is not a participant in the marriage. The officiant is not a participant in the marriage. The baker selling a celebratory cake is not a participant.
When new neighborhoods were being built to accommodate the post-WWII baby boom, it was not about living among anti-semites. Groups of Jews sought to buy unoccupied land and build new Jewish communities including shuls, schools and shops. This happened to my parents and a group of 20 families who were repeatedly legally stopped.
As for halacha requiring Jews who own businesses to give preference to hiring Jews. Dina Malcusa Dina. If you choose to live in the USA you agree to abide by the laws. This isn’t Tzarist Russia or the USSR where Jews were kept in by force. If you don’t like the laws, work to change them through the political system or leave.
I am amused by your comments about Jewish Communists marrying other Jewish Communists. In most cases they weren’t free to marry anyone else but another Jew because of government or church regulations in the old country. That USSR identity card carried a mark of religious/ethnic identity. The first generation of communists in Russia/USSR came at a time when the vast majority of citizens were members of the Russian Orthodox Church and rabid anti-semites. They had no interest in marrying Jews..Communist or not.May 11, 2016 1:14 pm at 1:14 pm #1152325charliehallParticipant
“one never knows who is the lesser of the two evils are especially the way Donald is going now”
Actually you do. It is clearly Trump. In every respect Clinton is a saint compared to him — according to our own values.
Just to give some examples:
Trump has often boasted of his licentious lifestyle. He publicly cheated on his first two wives, has frequently spoken of women in the most demeaning ways, and enthusiastically embraces the support he has been given by convicted rapist Mike Tyson. If this reflects Jewish values I don’t want to be Jewish.
Trump has suggested that the US default on our public debt. Then, challenged on that, he suggested that we could just print money to pay the country’s obligations. Prepare to need to take a shopping cart full of hundred dollar bills to the convenience store to purchase a carton of milk. This is Weimar Germany all over again and you know what succeeded Weimar Germany.
Trump has assembled a foreign policy team of inexperienced isolationists; not even Warren Harding had such an awful group. He would rescind America’s participation in all kinds of international agreements. His willingness to start trade wars will lead to huge increases in the prices of consumer goods and trigger a worldwide depression; think Smoot-Hawley and what that led to in Europe. And don’t think for a moment that his current comments in favor of more settlement building won’t get retracted — remember that he gave a pro-Israel speech at AIPAC just hours after demanding that Israel repay the US all the aid it has been given.
Trump has given hope to all the racists and nativists who had been shut out of politics for decades here in the US. He just included a prominent white supremacist as a convention delegate from California. Then the campaign lied about the fact that the campaign didn’t know about the guy, who had been funding pro-Trump robocalls all over the country with no objections from Trump. These white supremacists hate us as much as they hate blacks and Mexicans; don’t think for a second that they won’t have influence in a Trump administration.
Trump also buys into junk science like the anti-vaccination campaigns. Should there be a serious outbreak of infectious disease we could face a public health disaster.
Trump himself isn’t anti-Semitic. But neither was Mussolini. That didn’t work out well, and neither will this.May 11, 2016 2:32 pm at 2:32 pm #1152327
As for halacha requiring Jews who own businesses to give preference to hiring Jews. Dina Malcusa Dina.
DDD isn’t m’chayyeiv you to hire/not hire anyone.
If you choose to live in the USA you agree to abide by the laws. This isn’t Tzarist Russia or the USSR where Jews were kept in by force. If you don’t like the laws, work to change them through the political system or leave.
Besides for your logic, or lack thereof, isn’t the subject at hand which of the two philosophies–liberalism or conservatism–are better? In which case, that response to Avi K, who was criticizing certain laws, was either irrelevant or inadequate, or both.
No one’s forcing you to post in the coffee room. If you don’t like the posts, either get the mods to delete them, or leave.May 11, 2016 2:36 pm at 2:36 pm #1152328
I get you, mod, although I specifically took that example because it’s the liberals’ cardinal sin.
Let’s try again.
nfgo and CTLawyer, would you agree that assault should be legalized? If you think it’s wrong, you don’t have to assault anyone yourselves, but at least let it be legal for those who want it.May 11, 2016 2:40 pm at 2:40 pm #1152329
2. Use of laws to enforce discrimination is another matter. I was referring to homeowners who do not want to sell to Jews. However, in the end, as George Jefferson said, there is no white power or black power, only green power. The fact of the matter is that there was a tremendous movement of Jews to the suburbs after WW2. Jews, as Milton Friedman points out in “Capitalism and Freedom” have flourished under free enterprise. If they were excluded from the fraternity or sorority they started their own. If they were excluded form the country club they started their own. If they were excluded from Big Law they started their own firms or went into public service. The free choice door swings both ways.
3. Secular law cannot override Halacha except in some areas of dinei mamanot where that is part of the Halacha. For example, if the US would ban berit mila it would be incumbent on Jews to disobey. If you say differently than you are making an idol out of the lawmakers. Of course, aliya is the best answer anyway but not everyone is able, at least not on the spur of the moment.
4. I was referring to Jewish Communists in America.
5. I never wrote that Trump embodies Jewish values. He also does not have to. Only Bnei Noach values. Hillary certainly does not. In any case ,the question this year is not who is better but who is worse. Of course, if the FBI recommends indicting her than the ballgame changes completely. Her “adopted daughter” Huma Abedin said tjat she would be terrified if she were in Hillary’s shoes.May 11, 2016 2:42 pm at 2:42 pm #1152330
Dina D’malchusa doesn’t override Halacha. If Halacha says to do A and the local non-Jewish law says don’t do A, you’re obligated to do A.May 11, 2016 5:15 pm at 5:15 pm #1152331
The law being discussed doesn’t require one to do anything. It gives permission for 2 adults to do something according to the secular laws and receive the accompanying benefits.
The baker, owner of a hall, caterer and other vendors are NOT participants in a secular marriage. They are vendors to a celebration. They choose to sell, rent or not to do so. We are not talking about public accommodation laws that affect vendors who have liquor licenses, etc.
None of my comments have been in support of a particular candidate.
I don’t read minds…I tell my children and grandchildren this regularly. If you meant Jewish Communists in America, then you should have typed that.
As for your argument that shuls could lose tax exempt status. NONSENSE. The legalization of same sex secular marriage cannot compel same sex religious marriage in a house of worship. The government can only apply public safety laws and codes to religious institutions, not tell a shul’s Rav he must perform a ceremony.May 11, 2016 5:40 pm at 5:40 pm #1152332
If you vote for a third party candidate, you bring them closer to winning so people take them more seriously and might vote for them in the future.May 11, 2016 6:29 pm at 6:29 pm #1152333Sam2Participant
CTLawyer: Incorrect. The baker is a participant in the wedding, not the marriage. Many are religiously against participating in such a wedding, for good reason.
SDD: The difference between assault and same-sex marriage is that someone gets (directly) hurt by the assault.May 11, 2016 6:42 pm at 6:42 pm #1152334
I think I’m going to vote for Gary JohnsonMay 11, 2016 6:51 pm at 6:51 pm #1152335
1. The owner of the hall is certainly a participant. It may well be prohibited as mechazek yadei ovrei aveira. The caterers might not be as they are only selling food. In any case, as there are others who will gladly take money to participate do there is no reason not to grant a religious exception. In any case, the law is requiring them to do something – sell or provide a service for these farces.
2. We were discussing America.
3. If it can tell him that he cannot perform a ceremony (e.g. a polygamous marriage) why can’t it tell him that he must perform one. Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli Jr. does not preclude the possibility. For that matter, why can’t it revoke tax-exempt status of a shul as with a religious university. Why can’t it stipulate that the person’s license to perform marriages will be revoked? What about religious judges as this is not one of their regular functions? On the other hand, if accomodations are made for taking off on religious holidays why not for this (Prof. Eugene Volokh once suggested this).May 11, 2016 9:44 pm at 9:44 pm #1152336
Why are you assuming the marriage ceremony takes place in the banquet hall. It may very well take place at City Hall. Chances are that a same sex couple will not be looking for a frum catering hall to hold their celebration affair.
The government can’t make any non-government employee perform a marriage ceremony. We are not slaves of the government.
Not every one who performs marriages is ‘licensed’ by the government. This varies from state to state. Here, in Connecticut, any ordained in state clergy can perform a marriage ceremony. The couple still needs to procure a marriage license from the Town/City Clerk’s office where the ceremony will be held, and record it with the Toiwn/City Clerk in either the locale where it was issued or the new residence municipality (In State) of the newlyweds.
Frum people who bring in a clergy person from out of state (very common, my daughter was married here in April and the Rav was from NY) typically have the Town/City clerk perform a civil ceremony when picking up the license, or have a Justice of the Peace (I’m one) perform one, then have a religious wedding ceremony later.
Judges don’t generally make a habit of performing marriages unless there is a personal connection to the couple or their families.
AND absolutely none of this has any bearing on a choice of Presidential Candidate. This is all settled law in the USA.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.