Breaking News: Supreme Court Has Chosen Not To Hear Any Of The 7 Marriage Equality Cases.

[JakeStarkey]

1. "Many programs of conflict resolution, restorative justice and restitution/healing" is done first and foremost in our political elections, within the shelter of the Constitution.

2. We are discussing marriage equality, not age inequality, school systems, or moving up socially.

3. There are not going to be a disintegration into multiple societies and communities with different laws and semi-autonomy.

Sure, I would like to see TRUE conflict resolution done through parties BEFORE elections and voting on laws.
I agree this would keep it orderly, especially where there are collective disagreements split by party.

Trouble is, we aren't fully resolving issues.
But I agree with you, using the party system organized around elections, yes that is where I would focus!

2. You said that we would always have these problems.
And I was trying to say that setting up a school system (for training people
in managing self-govt and conflict resolution locally)
would address these problems as they arise so we don't keep falling into the same conflicts.

3. No, the point is the opposite.
it is to organize sustainable structures locally so there is order.

Just like we have multiple states under one union.
or multiple cities or counties under one state.

localizing and teaching self-govt is the opposite of disintegration.
it is teaching how to integrate more fully without losing individual rights and representation.
it is about maximizing both the benefits of local govt and benefits of centralized federal govt
by not getting in conflict over their roles and jurisdiction but using each level effectively.

since systems, interests and populations will change over time,
to make this sustainable that is why I would tie in
govt and financial/legal training with schools
to educate and adapt to each community and generation.

Whatever problems or conflicts arise, this is studied and resolved
by the local community first, and sharing with other communities
if the problem is systemic or greater than one group can solve on its own.

if you catch conflicts or issues early, the more effectively this can be addressed.
we still keep the federal state and party structures, but use them all in harmony
to maximize our resources. and quit wasting on conflict trying to one up each other by domination.

Conflict resolution in our society is done by voting in the public forum.

Trouble is, we aren't fully resolving issues.
But I agree with you, using the party system organized around elections, yes that is where I would focus!

You example of a school system in terms of conflict resolution is already in effect in its organization and by laws to resolve issues.

Marriage as it is constituted does under the law promote stability in our society.

We have localizing in our republican forms of governments.

I suspect training in all field will continue to the reason for schools and universities.

We are not going to undermine the federal system with a return to state and local primacy in laws wherein the conflict with SCOTUS interpretation of such.

If our republican form of government reaches consensus resolution at the community and state level, good.

Where it does not, we have the federal court, legislative, and executive systems..

 

[emilynghiem]

1. "Many programs of conflict resolution, restorative justice and restitution/healing" is done first and foremost in our political elections, within the shelter of the Constitution.

2. We are discussing marriage equality, not age inequality, school systems, or moving up socially.

3. There are not going to be a disintegration into multiple societies and communities with different laws and semi-autonomy.

Sure, I would like to see TRUE conflict resolution done through parties BEFORE elections and voting on laws.
I agree this would keep it orderly, especially where there are collective disagreements split by party.

Trouble is, we aren't fully resolving issues.
But I agree with you, using the party system organized around elections, yes that is where I would focus!

2. You said that we would always have these problems.
And I was trying to say that setting up a school system (for training people
in managing self-govt and conflict resolution locally)
would address these problems as they arise so we don't keep falling into the same conflicts.

3. No, the point is the opposite.
it is to organize sustainable structures locally so there is order.

Just like we have multiple states under one union.
or multiple cities or counties under one state.

localizing and teaching self-govt is the opposite of disintegration.
it is teaching how to integrate more fully without losing individual rights and representation.
it is about maximizing both the benefits of local govt and benefits of centralized federal govt
by not getting in conflict over their roles and jurisdiction but using each level effectively.

since systems, interests and populations will change over time,
to make this sustainable that is why I would tie in
govt and financial/legal training with schools
to educate and adapt to each community and generation.

Whatever problems or conflicts arise, this is studied and resolved
by the local community first, and sharing with other communities
if the problem is systemic or greater than one group can solve on its own.

if you catch conflicts or issues early, the more effectively this can be addressed.
we still keep the federal state and party structures, but use them all in harmony
to maximize our resources. and quit wasting on conflict trying to one up each other by domination.

Conflict resolution in our society is done by voting in the public forum.

Trouble is, we aren't fully resolving issues.
But I agree with you, using the party system organized around elections, yes that is where I would focus!

You example of a school system in terms of conflict resolution is already in effect in its organization and by laws to resolve issues.

Marriage as it is constituted does under the law promote stability in our society.

We have localizing in our republican forms of governments.

I suspect training in all field will continue to the reason for schools and universities.

We are not going to undermine the federal system with a return to state and local primacy in laws wherein the conflict with SCOTUS interpretation of such.

If our republican form of government reaches consensus resolution at the community and state level, good.

Where it does not, we have the federal court, legislative, and executive systems..

Hi Jake glad you have so much faith in the system as is.
I have faith in where the system is going but not where it is stuck right now.

Do you even acknowledge the inequality with the justice system?

* unequal if not missing access to legal resources so that minorities are jamming the prisons
in a masked genocide killing poor families and communities by incarcerating their parents and preventing them from work
* people like my own friend Barbara who died before seeing justice
from her property taken by playing games with guardianship and estates through probate courts
(in her case, she was deprived of legal rights to petition by unilaterally declaring her
a vexatious litigants based on "mental assessment' that was never done by any professional doctor using any legal protocol
Because Barbara, like other victims of legal, elderly and disabled abuse, never had adequate defense,
she got railroaded and robbed by family members who did have political connections with judges on their side
* conflicts of interest with bar associations, lawyers and judges and campaign contributions.

You are either really trusting in the higher justice to deliver karma beyond what can be proven
by due process in courts,
or you do not count these cases of legal and judicial abuses and "justice delayed"
as "justice denied"

I am considered VERY naive and idealistic in my faith that conflicts can still be resolved
and I INCLUDE all these nasty conflicts of interest that have no place in any system we can call ethical!

Are you looking at the same information I see,
and still saying that we "have conflict resolution and it is working.

Really?

Are you not counting the people in prison right now,
forced into plea bargains because of lack of legal knowledge, defense and resources?

Do those people's rights and lives just "not count"
in whatever equation you are using to say this = equals justice?

Are they just "expendable losses" so this fault in the system is "just how it is."

Really?
So who is to decide what is "equal protection"
and what cases count as just too bad?

I don't see this as equal, Jake.
You may be content with the piece of the pie you are getting,
but to me an injustice to anyone means something needs to be fixed.

What I wish, Jake, is that everyone had your same peace of mind
BEFORE competing to cheat someone out of their pie,
so nobody would steal or defraud others, but would be as content as you are,
seeing all things as exactly as they should be and not fighting unnecessarily.

But NOT being this complacent AFTER wrongs are committed,
assuming everything must be okay as long as it doesn't affect us directly!
As long as other people are suffering in conflict,
somehow that must be their fault?

Jake do you really think the system is adequate,
when people are writing books exposing the generational genocide
and "New Jim Crowe" system run by the prisons and criminal courts?

Whatever reality you live in, you must be blessed
for none of this to affect you. the people I know
working to change the criminal justice system,
for either inmates, convicts, crime victims or survivors
have their hands full trying to address all the problems
that needed to be corrected years ago and still aren't fixed.

The level of conflict resolution I believe in with Restorative Justice
would address not only govt but also the therapy, counseling,
treatment, healing, cure and prevention of crime -- both by individuals
and govt abuses and corporate conflicts of interest.

so until you see all crime and abuses corrected or prevented,
NO, Jake,
the system is NOT good enough to protect equal rights
and security for all people, if there are still abuses,
crimes, and corruption going on that could be
earlier discovered, corrected or prevented.

You may be content to let this keep happening to
"other people" (and to let govt address it "after the fact")
but to me, equal protection of the laws
means preventing crime or abuse from happening in
the first place, whenever and wherever that can be helped.

I'm not sure how you view this sector of the population.
Do you see them as bringing on their own problems?

Why does it not concern you that miscarriage of the law,
disproportionately or wrongfully punishing the wrong person,
be corrected by conflict resolution, instead of letting preventable
errors keep rolling through until the system corrects itself?

Do you really have that much faith the system already works?
Or do you have no faith that raising the standards
on conflict resolution would have any effect, so it would be the same?

Can you please explain why you
think the legal system is fine the way it is?

 

[Czernobog]

You get that the responsibility of the Judicial branch is not to represent the desires of the "the people", but the integrity of the Constitution, right? The "need" the court isn't by consensus. That's the point of the formation of the Judicial Branch was the recognition that sometimes even the majority of citizens can "get it wrong". So, as a way to balance that to prevent discrimination by "rule of the mob" the Judicial Branch was designed to weigh laws against the constitution, and make sure they were in accordance. If you feel that the rulings have been unduly "one-sided", perhaps you should consider the possibility that the problem is not with the courts, but with the laws that you keep trying to enact. Just a thought...

1. a. Yes I agree that the conflicts over unchangeable political beliefs
mean something is wrong with the law in that case and also
b. Something is missing from the Constitution
if we are not handling political beliefs with equal protection of the laws as a creed
under the First and Fourteenth Amendments, but allowing the govt to take one side and impose it on the other
in cases of unresolved conflict. Something IS inherently wrong with that
and DOES require either a public agreement to interpret the First and Fourteenth Amendments
to recognize and respect political creeds, OR a Constitutional convention or Amendment if needed.

Something has to change because this system is not solving this problem as is, and it keeps coming up,
in different forms and issues, where the common factor I find is political beliefs that are not equally accommodated.

Uh...okay...I'm not even sure what you mean here. The Court is pretty consistent in its position that the 14th applies to anyone, and everyone.

Actually slaves didn't "due process", because slaves had no standing as they were property, not people. A horse cannot sue its owner. That was kind of the point of the debates leading up to the Civil War - the personhood of slaves.

And in this case,
the political creeds of political parties are not recognized as protected religions.
So in the case of ACA or gay marriage, if the Democrat party has this "belief"
in right to marriage or right to health care through govt,
they are allowed to establish it through govt by majority-rule whereas a recognized religion could not do that.

You're right. A political ideology isn't a religious "belief". You get that a political "belief' is based on the understanding of the law, and not a matter of "faith", right? That's the whole point of the judicial system - to adjudicate whose understanding of the Law is accurate. I'm sorry if you feel your understanding is not being validated enough by the courts. However, I would, again, submit that this has more to do with the positions you choose to take, than some alleged slight on the part of the courts.

And equal beliefs in "natural rights under limited govt"
and "keeping marriage outside the govt and private only"
would be EQUALLY protected if recognized as a valid belief or creed.


Instead these are NOT recognized but treated as any other "secular" policy that can be voted on by
majority rule or decided by courts.

If we were to recognize certain political beliefs as creeds or religions,
this would give people on both sides equal rights and protections from being overruled by the other.

Sorry, Emily, but your claim to believe in "...limited government" would carry a whole lot more weight with me, if you weren't defending the ideology that wants to require government mandated vaginal probes, and sonograms on its female citizens.

As to your believe that government should stay out of marriage, sorry that ship has already sailed. And it wasn't something that happened with same-sex marriage, or even with Loving v Virginia. Government being involved in marriage is a practice, and policy that goes all the way back to the middle ages. Government has a vested interest in marriage. that is simply how it is. The only way to remove that vested interest is to also remove from the government any interest in property, and taxes. Good luck with that...

Both sides would benefit.
CZ do you think this could be recognized by teaching to interpret the First and Fourteenth Amendment
to apply to political beliefs? Or are there some people so literalist that they need Congress to pass
a written Amendment and/or judges in court to rule on it.

No, I don't agree. Look, saying that everyone has a right to their views is not equivalent to saying that they do not have to accept consequences for those views. And, sometimes, that consequences is being told, "You're an idiot". You have every right to believe that grass is green, because every morning the "Little Green Grass Fairy" comes out, and paints each blade with her little paint brush. I, as a man of science, am perfectly within my rights, when you try to force public policy to reflect that belief, to tell you that you are a fucking moron. I am not required to give your opinions, whether religious, or ideological, equal weight of every other opinion, regardless of the factual precision, or lack thereof, of the opinion, all in the name of ideological tolerance.

How was slavery changed, did it wait on a Congressional law or Court ruling first?
Or was it forced by war and executive order first, and then the Amendment 13 followed after
(and 14th Amendments and Civil Rights acts after that).

What do you suggest in dealing with political beliefs that cross the line
between secular policies the courts/congress can effect vs. religious based beliefs that belong to the people?

I suggest we follow the example set by Thomas Jefferson, and recognize that there is a "wall of separation" between the two, and that while the courts, and congress cannot dictate that people be forced into a particular religious belief, the religious also do not get to dictate that we govern according to a particular set of religious moral beliefs.

You are committing a couple errors here. First, that consensus is always based on understanding of the Constitution. It isn't. I would submit that beyond the preamble, most Americans would have hard time even listing the seven articles of the Constitution without looking it up, let alone expressing a reasoned grasp of the concepts within those articles. And we haven't even gotten to the 27 amendments of the Constitution, and how each of them affects the concepts they are related to in the in body. So, to suggest that popular referendums are based on rational desire to protect the rights enumerated within the Constitution is naive, and badly overestimates the education, knowledge, and understanding of "the people".

Second you assume that everyone reads all of the contents of every measure that comes before them for public referendum. Hell, our legislators, whose only job is to pass legislation, don't even do that. What on Earth would make you think that average citizens, who are very busy living the lives - working, taking care of family, etc. - would take the time to do so?

And they aren't expected to. You are still missing the fact that the check on popular referendum isn't the political system itself - it is the Judicial Branch of the government. You see public referendum still part of the legislative process. And the Judicial Branch was designed to be the check on the legislative process. It's job is to ensure that any laws passed - whether by legislation, or by referendum - are, in fact, constitutional.

1. Doesn't it start with the people writing good laws and contracts first?
If we did this right, wouldn't we impose less burden on the judicial and leave that open to handle
real issues of govt that people cannot better resolve ourselves directly in private?
See Code of Ethics for govt service: ethics-commission.net

How can we avoid passing bad or burdensome laws to begin with
which then burden the legal and judicial system with reviewing and handling lawsuits after the fact?

by the code of ethics we should employ the most efficient means of getting tasks accomplished.

Wouldn't it cost less to mediate and resolve conflicts in advance, not wait until afterwards to sue?

And, yet, we get laws, like these marriage bans, that conflict with the Constitution. So, it would seem that you may be advocating a nice ideal, but the reality may never reach that ideal.

Citizens don't need to be educated on every jot and tittle of the laws,
but just know the basic Bill of Rights plus 14th Amendment
and the Code of Ethics and their local police and city/county ordinances and process,
and they can participate equally. Most grievances or process of law should fall
within those basic guidelines i find to be the MINIMUM required of citizens to be legally responsible.

otherwise we backlog our system with crimes, abuses and lawsuits from violations
because people either don't know the laws and obligations or the cost of the process.
We would save more time, resources and damages/debts to the public
by mediating to resolve conflicts and prevent infringements including criminal and civil violations of laws.

By educating citizenry on the standards of law and what the process are and how much they cost.

But, that's just it. The citizenry obviously isn't educated (and, if some of the comments from the right are any indication, aren't interested in being educated) on the 14th amendment, and subsequent case law, or they wouldn't keep trying to pass laws that deprive people of their equal protections.

2. Also note that the system of using the legal/judicial system to check against abuses
has been skewed by corporate interests and legal resources/connections being unequal.

Corporations or even private citizens who can afford legal resources
can buy their way out of accountability. Even lawyers have known this
and have been fighting their own system in an uphill battle where justice is for sale
financially and politically. This is well known the legal and judicial system is run by politics and money.

Okay. Now you're talking about an entirely different issue. You do understand that criminal law, and constitutional law are two very different things, right? As this is a discussion of the constitutionality of marriage bans, I am going to choose to not comment on criminal law, and the accountability of criminals based on fame, money, or lack thereof. That is a completely different issue.

True protection of rights is going to come from
teaching people what the laws are, how to enforce standards consistently
and how to redress grievances and resolve conflicts directly to try to
curb, correct and prevent violations in advance and reduce damages after the fact.

I don't disagree. However, you can't "force' people to become better educated. So, as long as people continue to allow their feelings, and religious
leanings inform their ideas of what should, and should not make for legitimate law, we are going to need the Courts to continue to step in, and remind them that they simply do not get to do what they are trying to do.

We cannot keep expecting our judicial system to clean up afterwards.
Look at our courts backlogged, our prisons and our immigration system
for people waiting on due process.

I patently disagree. Not only can we expect the courts to do this, but we should expect the courts to do this. that is what they are there for.

We need to stop the backlog of unnecessary conflicts jamming up the system
so it can be reserved for the cases of public security and safety that govt is supposed to handle.

Ahhh...but you see the question is "What is unnecessary"?

The civil conflicts need to be prevented and managed
by conflict resolution or we'll always have this backlog and people
getting away with injustice because it takes so long to address and doesn't act as a
guaranteed correction much less a deterrent.

Basing decisions and lawful conduct on "consent of the governed"
would act as an immediate check with immediate consequences
where both parties that agree to this standard get it protected for them,
instead of gambling on majority rule or court ruling where it is not guaranteed.

Agreeing to go by consensus would ensure that between those parties.

You still have things backwards. You seem to have this really naive veiw of the "governed" that demands that anything they do, so long a s it is done by majority vote must be the right thing, simply by virtue of the fact that it was done by majority vote.

I'm reminded of the Nixon interview with David Frost that I watched as a kid, when Frost asked what should be done when the President does something illegal, and my jaw just dropped, when Nixon replied, "If the President does it, it can't be illegal". he actually believed that no matter what he did, it was made legally legitimate, by the mere virtue of the fact that it was the President of the united States doing it.

Now, you seem to be suggesting something very similar about the "consensus of the governed". Any law passed, must be a Constitutionally legitimate law, by virtue of the fact that the majority passed it. That is simply not true. Even the founding fathers didn't trust the "tyranny of the majority"; this is why they created the electoral college for electing a President.

and yes I agree that consensus is based on Constitutional standards,
(and I also throw in the Constitutional ethics under the
Code of Ethics for Government service); I would base the standards
of laws on that and urge that all citizens be equally knowledgeable and
trained in this process in order to enforce their equal rights under law.

How can we be "equally protected under law"
if citizens don't even know how the laws and govt
work, and what the standards are for due process?

No wonder we are unequal and people can be taken advantage of politically
to depend on politicians in parties and govt to make decisions for them!

There is no shortcut to teaching people the laws in order to be equal under them.
Even to delegate authority to other people to govern, they would need to have basic knowledge
in order to check their own govt and hold lawyers, judges, leaders and other party/govt officials accountable.

I don't see a shortcut to that, because as soon as people depend on someone else,
they are not equal in power. They must at least be given the choice and access
to help to be legally and politically equal in power with equal voice in decisions
"in addition" to the choice to delegate or hire out this authority to another party to represent their interests.

Again, I don't disagree with your sentiment here, but there is simply no way to force people to learn what they do not wish to learn. So, unless you are suggeting that no one who does not demonstrate this basic understanding of government, and civics should be allowed to vote (and good luck with that as it, in itself, runs afoul of the 14th amendment), then the only viable solution is the one we have: Allow people to pass whatever laws they want, and then count on the courts to determine the constitutionality of those laws. Does that mean that we're (any of us, at any given time) going to disagree with a courts ruling? Sure. But, in order to have those rulings respected that we do agree with, then we have no choice but to respect those rulings with which we do not agree.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Emily, you make assumptions on things I never said and never intimated. I do think the system is having to work its way through the morass that extremists have caused because they don’t believe in a social compact that my generation in almost its entirety believed in implicitly..

We have real problems in this country, and some of it is as exactly as you describe. The only way for the system to work the way you want it to work is if all Americans want change for the better and do it from the top down.

Of course the justice system is unequal, and will remain so as elites are allowed to corrupt it, through money and lobbying. I am fully aware of the injustices perpetuated in the name of family, community, and religion. The Barbaras of the world will only be saved by those who want to save the Barbaras. Most of them would not know such a change if it bit them in the nose.

Only our legislatures and courts can reform the ills you see only if our citizens come to realization that too many people are being hurt by elitist groups. Small government cannot do it from bottom up.

I have my “piece of the pie” because I worked for it and stole from no one, so I am not burdened with false guilt.

I wish you well with Restoration Justice, but do not confuse that with movements such as ACA or marriage equality.

 

[emilynghiem]

Emily, you make assumptions on things I never said and never intimated. I do think the system is having to work its way through the morass that extremists have caused because they don’t believe in a social compact that my generation in almost its entirety believed in implicitly..

We have real problems in this country, and some of it is as exactly as you describe. The only way for the system to work the way you want it to work is if all Americans want change for the better and do it from the top down.

Of course the justice system is unequal, and will remain so as elites are allowed to corrupt it, through money and lobbying. I am fully aware of the injustices perpetuated in the name of family, community, and religion. The Barbaras of the world will only be saved by those who want to save the Barbaras. Most of them would not know such a change if it bit them in the nose.

Only our legislatures and courts can reform the ills you see only if our citizens come to realization that too many people are being hurt by elitist groups. Small government cannot do it from bottom up.

I have my “piece of the pie” because I worked for it and stole from no one, so I am not burdened with false guilt.

I wish you well with Restoration Justice, but do not confuse that with movements such as ACA or marriage equality.

1. OK I misunderstood and thought you were saying the current legal and democratic system
is "adequate with conflict resolution," when I saw it as obstructing and deny justice and due process.

2. i am saying that the conflict resolution approach would have PREVENTED
the deadlocks over ACA and gay marriage by working out the objections in advance of passing laws.

So I agree that the ACA and marriage equality movements are NOT using the Consensus model
for resolving conflicts to arrive at agreed laws and contracts.

And that is what I am saying is WRONG and MISSING.

The current legal and legislative system is allowing and REWARDING
bullying tactics that obstruct the true democratic process of redressing grievances and reaching agreements on policies.

You can say it is the people abusing the system,
and I AGREE that the same system CAN be used to mediate and form consensus.

But as long as govt and people keep endorsing and enforcing one sided decisions as law
this is legalizing political bullying, fraud and discrimination, so no, I don't agree that it is "okay" to keep
using the system this way and to "teach that's just the way it is."

Even if bullying happens in schools, we can't turn a blind eye but have to intervene and teach that it is wrong.
So when are we going to get serious about cracking down on political bullying and say it is wrong to deny the equal right of consent by others by coercion until they comply? How can adults do one thing but expect to teach kids another?

So you are right, the laws I contest do NOT respect equal consent of the governed.
So that is what I am saying is wrong with how we are using the system. Thanks JS!

 

[Pop23]

I don't hate sterile people

Are you claiming same sex coupling don't procreate due to sterility?

Crazy dood, absolutely crazy

What business is it of yours? If they want children, they can adopt.

So can opposite sex fertile couples, but same sex coupling cannot make a baby

Hmmmmmm, yep, huge difference, would you not agree?

I don't give a shit who wants to procreate, who doesn't, or who can't or won't. When it becomes the law that we must procreate, in order to marry, you let me know.

And the blind should be granted drivers licenses.

Okey dokey then.

How, pray tell do you get that from this discussion?

A blind person does not meet the criteria for getting a license....seeing road signs, seeing traffic, being able to look both ways before pulling out of a cross street, etc.

What criteria to legal marriage does a gay person/couple not meet?

O I C

Gays could always marry

 

[JakeStarkey]

No, in a major evolving nation state with technology and software that are evoling every 18 months a limited government from bottom to top system can't work because it will create too many different players.

Our republication government of elected president and representatives and senators with a federal judicial system is by far the best system to work this out.

Once again, representation for resolution at state and federal levels in a federal system.

Your proposal would cause the system to spin apart from too many players with power.

 

[Czernobog]

1.

I*sigh* I swore I wasn't going to get into this, but, okay. Here is the problem, Emily. It is a matter of definition. I could go through all seven of the process individually, but suffice to say that defending "right to life" is nothing more than misleading rhetoric. A fetus does not meet the criteria for being an independent life. it is a mass of living cells, but it is not, itself, a life. This is why "pro-life" is a misnomer, and why advocating for banning all abortions on the grounds of "right to life" is erroneous. In the case of a pregnant women there is only one life in question - the woman's. The fetus is nothing more than a potential life. I'm sorry, I am going to be more concerned over the natural rights of the actual life, than I am the potential life.

And, again, you can, and did have your right to defend these positions in court. You seem to be confusing being allowed to have your day in court with winning your argument. They are not the same thing.

Yes, by your secular beliefs you are perfectly in line to set the legal definition on person as you did.
And equally for those with religious beliefs, they have the right to DEFEND their beliefs (as backed
scientifically that the DNA is UNIQUE upon conception if they choose to draw the line there).

uh, no, they don't. At least not as a matter of law. That's kind of the point of the "separation clause".

I agree that such religious beliefs CANNOT BE IMPOSED through govt,
but likewise neither can the secular beliefs be imposed.

You're quite right, which is why no one is avocating mandated abortions. Telling you that you do not get to decide for other women what they can, and cannot do is not imposing anything on you.

Where I find prolife people agree is on prevention.
Even without being forced by laws, the prolife believe in abstention, adoption, etc. to prevent abortion.
So this shows that preventing abortion can be achieved by FREE CHOICE and does not depend on bans by laws.

You may be advocating choice (sort of), but you are certainly not supporting liberty. Your position says, "You are free to make any choice you want to...so long as we approve of that choice," Guess what? Liberty to choose, means that you also have to be okay with people making choices that you, personally, may not agree with. That's what makes it liberty.

None of the prolife people depend on bans on laws to prevent abortion, but are opposed by free choice.
So that is the argument I make for prochoice, and it is hard to argue with because all the prolife people do so by free choice.
I point to their movement as PROOF that abortion can be stopped by education and free choice as they practice themselves.

And bully for you. guess what? If you don't want to have an abortion don't have one. However, you don't get to make that choice for other people.

Arguing about their beliefs will go in circles because that will not change and govt cannot force them to change their beliefs.
Working on prevention respect both prochoice and prolife equally, and does not discriminate by creed.
So that approach is more constitutionally inclusive and agreeable and able to be enforced across the lines.

Well, except I notice that there was one choice that you, rather pointedly, neglected to mention - contraception. I would also submit that "adoption" is not really a viable alternative to abortion. The fact is some women do not want to be pregnant. It's not about not wanting to be a mother, it is about not wanting to be pregnant. And, that is a perfectly valid position. Abortion is not necessary because of a lack of education. Abortion is necessary because people have a right to do what they wish with their own bodies, without judgement from others.

I respect your views equally as those who believe otherwise,
which I include as protected under the First and Fourteenth Amendment.

I respect your beliefs. What I do not respect is you, or anyone else, attempting to force others to behave in accordance with your beliefs.

If people choose to hear your reasoning and follow it, that's great,
but it is equal to people choosing to hear their beliefs and choosing to follow it or not;
it cannot be endorsed by govt but must remain a free choice since religious beliefs are involved.

Precisely the point of our position - everyone must have the right to make that decision on their own. Which is why we oppose all of these efforts to criminalize abortion.

When people agree to back down on their religious beliefs, I will back down from defending their equal religious defense.
As long as they believe those things, this has to be worked out by consensus where they choose to change their approach.

Again, you are conflating attacking a person's religious beliefs, with attacking a person's attempt to legislate everyone's behavior based on those beliefs. Those are two different things. And, no, it is not something that gets to be decided by consensus. I don't care if 99% of this country is in agreement on a religious moral position. The first amendment guarantees us 1% that the religiouss of this country do not get to dictate that we live in accordance with their religious beliefs.

Once again there is no bias going on. You have had your chance to bring every one of your issues before the courts, just like progressives have. The "bias" is that none of your positions was supported in the Constitution, so your side lost its argument every time. hat's not a problem with our political system; that is a problem with one side - who shall remain nameless - constantly choosing to support concepts that are antithetical to the Constitution.

No, CZ I have never had a chance to represent my beliefs in any court.

sorry but I am left out and am still fighting the first step which is to create a public consensus
in accordance with my beliefs that govt is supposed to reflect the consent of the public.

Well, if that is the case and you feel you have a valid argument to present, then I encourage you to suit to the court, and let your case be heard.

I would contend that my views of ISONOMY are even MORE constitutional inclusive and fair
than the given system. Unlike politicians and lawyers and judges, I respect the consent of
all sides equally, and try to include them in a solution that satisfies and protects them equally.

I don't see govt used to protect interests equally but only the side of the majority or winning side in court.
That is not equal by my standards of isonomy that are based on the First and Fourteenth amendment.

My standards are higher not lower, and more inclusive, so that is consistent with
the Constitution where the current system has fallen short and left people out including me.

The legal system does not guarantee my beliefs are protected;
only conflict resolution and consensus protects my consent equally as I respect others.

That's just it. Your claim would seem to suggest that you do not have quite the understanding of the Constitution that you think it does. It is not the Judicial system's job to protect your beliefs. It is not the Judicial System's job to protect my beliefs. It the the Judicial system's job to protect the integrity of the Constitution, no more, no less. If in doing so, your beliefs are not justified, I would submit that the fault lies not with the judicial system, but with your attempt to legislate your beliefs.

Until this standard is followed, my rights get overrun constantly.
I want the right to separate the health care policies by party so I can equally protect
beliefs on both sides without conflict, yet don't have this choice while both sides are fighting to dominate.

You get that is not how our government is set up, right? We don't have a "Democrat" government, and a "Republican" government. We have one government, with two political parties.

So I start by forming a consensus among the people and try to work through the parties to reach an
agreement on a broader public scale. this respects my beliefs in consent of the governed.
I have to practice what I preach in order to enforce it. I cannot violate my own beliefs by bullying
by coercion majority rule or political dominance in the media, parties, courts etc. which violates my belief in consent.

Well, you are certainly free to try to get a majority of people to see things as you do. Good luck with that.

Again, you can "make" any laws you want - as the marriage bans prove. However, once you are done making those laws, the Judicial Branch gets to do its job, and adjudicate whether those laws are Constitutional, or not. You seem to be suggesting that the "will of the people" has supreme authority", without restriction. Guess what? It doesn't. The authority of the "people" ends at the Constitution. The people do not get to enact laws that contradict the rights innumerated in the Constitution, regardless of how much some would like to.

Not according my understanding of the Code of Ethics for govt service:
1. people should NOT put partisan agenda before the Constitution (I consider this a violation of First and Fourteenth Amendments by counting political beliefs as a creed)
2. passing laws first then fighting to correct after is NOT the most efficient use of tax dollars and public resources
3. ex: the marriage bans were already unconstitutional and should not have been passed which wasted time and resources

So you can use this system to check overreaching and abuse of govt *in advance*
that doesn't meet Constitutional muster or Constitutional ethics.


Conflict resolution would catch and correct most errors in advance that can be corrected or prevented.

Also, someone recommended a Con amendment that before Congress passes any new laws especially
creating a new authority or system, that a vote must be taken if this is Constitutional or not.

I think that is a good idea.

Not only would it show if there is a consensus or not,
but allow people to show they are opposing it on Constitutional grounds (and I would require them to correct
the fault and not just block for the sake of objecting) and not opposed to the health care or content of the bill.

Ex:
I am not opposed to gay marriage but oppose the imposition of it using laws and language
that excludes other people's beliefs and is not secularly neutral enough to prevent religious issues or conflicts.

I am not opposed to health care reforms and believe in free choice, so if people want single payer
systems they should have a way to set that up for those who agree;
but I oppose imposing a system that denies and punishes equal choices of others to fund
and manage health care systems of their beliefs as well.

So this might help stop the fights over the content
and focus on the Constitutionality of how laws are written or how they can be corrected or separated
to allow equal beliefs to be protected from discrimination or imposition on each other.

LOL!!! You are joking, right? You would be absolutely right - if anyone in our political system actually followed this "Code of Ethics" you keep referring back to. Now, let's try a little reason, and logic, shall we? If that code e actually being employed, do you think these marriage bans would have been passed , in the first place? Now, I'm all for a little fantasizing about how things "ought to be", but, at the end of the day, we have to deal with reality, as it is. So, I'll tell you what. As soon as you get every lawmaker, and politician to agree to govern according to this code of ethics of yours, I'll be happy to join you in your little experiment. Until then, I will continue to trust the judicial system designed by the Constitution to stop the laws that are unconstitutional from being implemented.

 

[Czernobog]

And you again demonstrate your bigotry, and discrimination
. You insist that same sex couples are less valid than opposite sex couples, because they cannot procreate, and them insist, when it is pointed out that sterile opposite sex couples can't either, that this is different.

Why do you hate sterile people?

What about the argument that the partnership between male and female
complementary genders is necessary for social development of children.

And the issue is that not all people recognize the same sex partners
as "male/female" spiritual complements (some cases do consider themselves male/female in roles)

CZ if you are going to argue that legally a person's definition should not be changed
to something on a spiritual level in the case of a baby/fetus/right to life,
can you understand that some people cannot change definition of marriage
to recognize same sex couples on a spiritual level?

And no one is asking them to. Marriage is a social contract, that is guaranteed to everyone regardless of race, gender, or sexuality. All of the religious objections are irrelevant, as those religious concepts only matter to the religious bodies to whom they apply. No one is asking any religion to change that.

Some people cannot think that way, it goes against their inherent beliefs.
It may not make logical or legal sense to you and me,
but neither does our inclusion of same sex couples make sense to them.

Then those people should absolutely not marry someone of the same sex. no one is suggesting forcing them to; only that they don't get to stand in the way of the people who don't feel that way.

Can we really expect to use govt to force a change
when it is religiously embedded as part of their beliefs?

No, we can't. And we don't. Lemme put it this way. How does John, and Steve down the road getting married affect your personal religious views even one iota. Does that suddenly force you to abandon your position? Does it suddenly make your deity invalid? Is your faith tied to those two gentlemen partaking in a simple civil marriage ceremony? Because, frankly, if it is, then the problem is your faith, not their marriage. If it isn't, then why should you give a shit?

NOTE this cannot be compared with race,
because some people are healed of unwanted attractions who change orientation
but I have never heard of someone changing spiritually to another race after going through healing transformation.

No they're not. Gay conversion therapy has been repeatedly debunked, and proven to be nothing more than snake oil. Not only does it not work, but it has been demonstrated to actually cause emotional, and psychological damage. Sorry. This argument that "the gay can be cured" is just another lie sold by religious zealots.

orientation is on a spiritual level
but race is physically born and cannot be exactly compared

No it's not. See above.

 

[Czernobog]

I think you misunderstand my position, Emily. the fact is from my perspective it is irrelevant whether homosexual is genetic, or a lifestyle choice. Either way, it is a behavior that is private, and personal, and has no business being regulated in any way. The abortion question is one of conflating words to mean things that they simply do not mean. But, I'm not gonna get into the pro-choice vs anti-choice, here, because that is an entirely different argument, an d would fill an entire thread all by itself.

So, let's just stick to homosexuality, and marriage, shall we?

Thanks CZ I agree to keep this private and out of govt.
And am even willing to offer the option of writing the state laws to be truly neutral
so that marriage and all the differences and conflicts stay in private hands and decisions and out of courts and legislatures,
except where people AGREE on the language and laws.

if it can be resolved without pushing it that far, that's fine,
but the people in each state have to agree. If any ONE person or group claims
their religious freedom or equal rights is abridged, to me, that is unconstitutional
and whatever is wrong with that law needs to be corrected before it is considered public.

I actually like your idea, except there is one small problem with the statement of your understanding of the positions:

Let the liberal/Democrat party be used to fund manage and endorse
gay marriages and health care through singlepayer insurance
that is mandated for all their members who choose to pay into it under those terms.
​

To the bold: You get that under "Single Payer" there would be no need for mandating, or "members paying into" anything, right? The whole point of single-payer is that healthcare is all government-funded. Now, it would mean raising taxes on the top 1%, and corporations. Well...boo-fucking-hoo. I am sick to death corporatists whining about how put out corporations, and CEOs are.​

And CZ the problem with public funding is not everyone agrees on public policies of what to fudn with health care:
* stem cell research
* abortion
* birth control
* euthanasia
etc.

You made it clear your beliefs about when does life begin clash with other citizens equally protected
under law who cannot be made to fund things against their beliefs or it runs into Constitutional violations and conflicts​

Guess what sweetheart? That is the down-side of taxes. My taxes go to pay for a lot of shit that I don't personally agree with. However, I understand that I don't get to personally pick and choose how my tax dollars get spent, like selecting off a menu. That's just reality.

So this is why it will not work without a consensus.
So why not separate by party so people can form a consensus.

We don't need to separate to form a "consensus". A "consensus" is a majority. We did that. Just because you happened to not be in that majority, doesn't mean that you get to pack up your toys, and leave. If you don't like the way our government is run, then by all means, leave. Find a country with a better government. But you don't get to fuck with ours. Ours works just fine as it is. I'm kinda with Churchill on this: Democracy is the worst form of government except for all those others that have been tried.

As for Singlepayer, why not restrict the network and membership to just those people who agree
to that system. The Democrat party has levels of representation and democratic process on all levels
from local to state and national. Why not use that system to fund their own health care networks,
prove it works first, before selling the idea to others voluntarily participating and choosing to fund it.

You get that you are basically advocating dissolving the United States, and dividing us into two nations, right? You don't get to do that. sorry, the Constitution doesn't have an "out clause". The Southern States tried this once - it didn't work out so well for them.

Let the Republican/Tea party be used to manage free market
health care through church nonprofit and business programs through schools
and manage their members by voluntary participation and enterprise that way
without mandating things they believe are not govt jurisdiction.
​

To the bold: You see, this is the real problem between progressives, and so-called "Social Conservatives". We have fundamental, antithetical opinions on what "government jurisdiction" is. Thus, in order for this to work, you would need to spell out, exactly, what you think those are. For instance, on that abortion issue. I think that every Republican should be forced on the record, clearly, what his opinion is on abortion, and abortion clinic closing legislation If they had to do that, I think you would be surprised how many votes they lost from what they previously thought were "conservative women".

Yes i agree we need to come out and resolve this on each issue separately.
and not lump them together in a political war for one party over another.
hash out each issue and agree on solutions and limits on what we support govt to do or not.

I find more Republicans will respect the prochoice position as part of Constitutional freedom
provided this is not abused to promote abortion but more work is done to prevent abortion,
and for prolife people that means 100% prevention.

I agree to seek to enforce that standard of 100% prevention by free choice in order to keep it a legal chioce
and not rely on bans or other regulations that people do not agree with.

Yeah...I dealt with your restrictive idea of "choice" in another post. I don't see any reason to deconstruct it, again.

If we make the commitment to prevent abortion, that is the real goal.

if we work out each issue in full, we can reduce or prevent deadlocks over legislation that is missing the points.

I think this is VERY necessary to agree what is and what is not agreed upon by the public to be govt role and policy.

You see. It's not my job to prevent abortion. The fact is that I couldn't give so much as a single flying fuck what a woman does, or does not do with that mass of cells in her womb. It's her body, and she can damned well do what she wants. You see, you seem to have this idea that, if we all just thought about it, we would all agree that abortions should be prevented at all costs. Why? The only reason for... No. You know what? I'm gonna actually make you answer that; I'm not gonna do it for you. However, I will give you this little hint. If you start with anything resembling "baby", "life", "child" or any of that bullshit, you will have lost me, already, because a fetus is none of those things. So. Go ahead. Tell me why I should care about preventing abortions?

The decriminalization of marijuana,
the immigration policies depend on agreeing where to draw lines
and how to prevent infractions without overreaching.

other issues would benefit from recognizing we don't all "draw the lines in the same places,"
so we need to agree where do we focus to solve and prevent problems.

But my point is, when it comes to the law, we should. The Law is about protecting me from you. That is the line; and, whenever we cross that line, we invariably do so at the cost of individual freedom.

Thanks CZ
if they legalize cloning I'd like to clone you Dante and others
to have a citizens review and go through all these laws people argue over
and hash out where the lines are being crossed and how to untangle them.

We need this process x 1000!
Seriously thanks for your help to go through and sort this out, appreciate it!

No problem...

 

[Czernobog]

As to your comment, I suppose part of the problem is my fault. You get that nothing on that list is a "right", correct? Those are the benefits of marriage. The only "right" in question is, and has always been, that of marriage - specifically the right to marry the person of your own choosing, with no restriction.

No such right exists.
Marriage, as a legal institution, exists because state law created it.
Nothng requires a state to do so, and so, upon repealing the relevant laws, marriage as a legal institution would cease to exist.
Thus, marriage, as a legal institution, is a privilige granted by the state, not a right inherent to the people.

Except that according to Loving v Virginia marriage is a right.

Except that the legal institution of marriage exists only because the state created it.
What happens to the "right" of marriage when the state repeals its laws that created it? It goes away.
Thus, it cannot be a right as a right cannot be taken away by the repeal of legislation.

Okay. I propose putting that theory to the test. I want a state to attempt to pass a law which refuses to recognise marriage of any type. Let's see how well that works out for that state.

In other words... you do not have an effective response to the argument that marriage as a legal iinstitutiion is a privilege created by the state, not a right.
So noted.

No. In other words, I think you're full of shit, and I think you know you're full of shit. Missouri floated the idea of doing just this. Do you remember? They were so pissed off that they had to accept gay marriages, that they just said, "Fuck it! We just won't recognize any marriages, then!" The few Republican extremists who suggested that were politely told, even by their own party, to "Sit down, and shut the fuck up,"

But, hey! If you think that is a viable way to get around this icky Gay Marriage thing, by all means, you try that.

Lemme know how it works out for ya.

And you lemme know how long it takes for you to run up against that Full Faith and Credit clause.

 

[Czernobog]

And you again demonstrate your bigotry, and discrimination
. You insist that same sex couples are less valid than opposite sex couples, because they cannot procreate, and them insist, when it is pointed out that sterile opposite sex couples can't either, that this is different.

Why do you hate sterile people?

I don't hate sterile people

Are you claiming same sex coupling don't procreate due to sterility?

Crazy dood, absolutely crazy

What business is it of yours? If they want children, they can adopt.

So can opposite sex fertile couples, but same sex coupling cannot make a baby

Hmmmmmm, yep, huge difference, would you not agree?

See? You hate the sterile. Not only are you making a distinction between homosexuals, and straight people, but, with this very post, you are pointing out "fertile" couples. Why do you hate the infertile? Why do you hate people who have had hysterectomies? Why do you hate people who have had vasectomies?

I'll say it again, sterile or not, they belong a part of the opposite gender coupling demographic.

Well, you're getting there. Now all you have to do is finish the thought: "Yes. I'm a bigot who hates homosexuals, and am going to look for any excuse I can to justify discriminating against them".

C'mon. I know its hard, but you can do it...

 

[JakeStarkey]

It's OK for folks to say, "I hate homos and will oppose marriage equality to the day I die." And we can say, "It's your right to do so even if you are wrong, and we have the right to stick our fingers in our ears and wiggle them at you, cross our eyes, and stick out our tongues." Then we can ignore each other.

 

[Youch]

Gay marriage advocates are so wrapped up in their single issue they cant see the damage this kind of judicial interventionism does to our whole system. I'm sure most would disagree, as I do, with the court's ruling on Citizens United.

I patently disagree. What you call "Judicial interventionism" the Constitution calls the courts doing their job. Yes, I do disagree with the court ruling on Citizens' United. However, that decision doesn't make me change my mind about what the Court's job is. Just because I may have a different interpretation of the constitution, that's irrelevant. Guess what? My interpretation of the constitution is irrelevant; it is the interpretation of those guys in the black robes - whether at the district level, or the Supreme Court - that matters.

You've obviously never read or understood the constitution. Or that more than guys in the black robes. I find your dangerously naïve on a subject that you attempt to discuss.

Well, what you "find" is quite irrelevant, as the Constitution is very clear about the power of the Judicial Branch in Article III, Section 2:

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;--between a State and Citizens of another State;--between Citizens of different States;--between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects​

So, yeah. it is the job of courts to decide if any law, statute, or policy of local, county, state, or federal government is, in fact, constitutional.

...moving on...

You can move on all you like. If constitutionality is your measuring stick, you just lost the argument. Marriage is not a prescribed federal, constitutional institution, and thus falls to the states, which the SCOTUS just obstructed. This is basic stuff. That you fail to understand it just places you in the "dangerous to my family" category.

Please do, using your "states rights" argument...explain Loving v Virgina, Zablacki v Redhail and Turney v Safley.

Um, states rights is the fundamental basis of our Constitution. Does that need to be explained?

Let's focus the issue here, as many drive-by posters fail to take into proper context previous discussions.

If you are asking me to justify activists courts, I cannot do so constitutionally.

 

[Czernobog]

Um, states rights is the fundamental basis of our Constitution. Does that need to be explained?

Let's focus the issue here, as many drive-by posters fail to take into proper context previous discussions.

If you are asking me to justify activists courts, I cannot do so constitutionally.

Okay. Explain something to me, like I'm a five year old.There have, to date, been 19 same-sex marriage ban cases brought to the Federal District Courts. Since you are so absolutely certain that the question of marriage validation is solely the purview of the States, is it your contention that the attorneys for the States have, in every case, been complete morons, with no understanding of constitutional law?

If not, then how do you explain that, not in one case, has that argument been raised? Why has not one case been argued that the Federal Courts had no jurisdiction in the question of marriage?

 

[Seawytch]

I patently disagree. What you call "Judicial interventionism" the Constitution calls the courts doing their job. Yes, I do disagree with the court ruling on Citizens' United. However, that decision doesn't make me change my mind about what the Court's job is. Just because I may have a different interpretation of the constitution, that's irrelevant. Guess what? My interpretation of the constitution is irrelevant; it is the interpretation of those guys in the black robes - whether at the district level, or the Supreme Court - that matters.

You've obviously never read or understood the constitution. Or that more than guys in the black robes. I find your dangerously naïve on a subject that you attempt to discuss.

Well, what you "find" is quite irrelevant, as the Constitution is very clear about the power of the Judicial Branch in Article III, Section 2:

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;--between a State and Citizens of another State;--between Citizens of different States;--between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects​

So, yeah. it is the job of courts to decide if any law, statute, or policy of local, county, state, or federal government is, in fact, constitutional.

...moving on...

You can move on all you like. If constitutionality is your measuring stick, you just lost the argument. Marriage is not a prescribed federal, constitutional institution, and thus falls to the states, which the SCOTUS just obstructed. This is basic stuff. That you fail to understand it just places you in the "dangerous to my family" category.

Please do, using your "states rights" argument...explain Loving v Virgina, Zablacki v Redhail and Turney v Safley.

Um, states rights is the fundamental basis of our Constitution. Does that need to be explained?

Let's focus the issue here, as many drive-by posters fail to take into proper context previous discussions.

If you are asking me to justify activists courts, I cannot do so constitutionally.

Well, at least you are consistent. Most of the other anti gay bigots say those three cases were not judicial activism and only same sex marriage rulings are. Kudos for consistency.

 

[Seawytch]

Not really. The theory, not entirely inaccurate, is that being married, and starting a family, carries with it added financial burdens. It is for this reason that couples filing as married get the tax benefits they get - to offset these costs. It is the same reason for the "Child Tax Credits". By your logic, there should be no "Child Tax Credit"; that should just be another credit that everyone gets. Otherwise we're "discriminating" against people without kids.

And here's the thing. Tax breaks are not rights; there is no guarantee that everyone gets the same benefits. However, everyone should have the same right to the opportunities that make those benefits possible. Hence, the drive for Same-Sex Marriage Equality.

Well I think your destroying the whole grounds for gay-marriage lawsuits if you think tax breaks are not rights.......that as I understand it is a key part of their argument. .......I was talking about single people without children, they should not be disadvantaged by not recieving tax breaks that married people get solely for being married.

Also...part of their argument is that 'they are born that way"....well then they are born without the capacity to have children in that relationship.....why should they argue they have the right to raise children then?

So you also disagree with tax breaks the wealthy get for owning airplanes, right?
Are you trying to argue that people who cannot procreate with each other naturally should not have children? You're going to cause an orphanage crisis with stupid rules like that.
Go ahead and end the tax breaks, we're still going to want civil marriage. Tax breaks are only one of over a thousand rights, benefits and privileges associated with legal, civil marriage. We've been marrying for decades...we've only just started getting the tax breaks a couple years ago. We'll survive.

Yes I do disagree with tax breaks the wealthy get for owning planes.
I think states, or private placement groups, should be allowed to decide not to place orphans or foster kids with gay couples without it being illegal. I doubt very much if it would cause an orphanage crisis.
Im glad we can probably agree not to hand out tax favors based solely on marriage status.
the Loving case was decided upon the greater popular national will expressed in the 13,15th and the surface,common sense intent of the 14th amendments.

Private placement groups do not have to place children with anyone they don't want. If, however, you take money from the Federal government or from a state with non discrimination laws that include gays and lesbians you don't get to discriminate against gays.
You said:

.well then they are born without the capacity to have children in that relationship.....why should they argue they have the right to raise children then?

That would leave out all infertile couples...you know, the ones that adopt children the most. Gays are not born with an inability to have children within their relationship. We're born gay, not infertile. (I've had five)
What Amendment was specifically cited in the Loving decision?

Regarding private placement groups, thats not what I've read regarding the Catholic church in Massachusetts for example.
There is differentiation between Infertile couples and gay-couples.....I doubt if most infertile couples were born that way...even if so tho, other aspects of their gender remain so that they mimic normal fertile couples.
Yes, I realize you can still be fertile and be gay, which I think maybe points away from the "born-that-way" idea but ...I think if you accept your gayness as being innate perhaps u should accept that you shouldn't raise children.

I happen to know a few infertile couples that were born that way, but still you only want to keep gays from adopting children. That's pretty bigoted, there fella.

As to the Catholic Charities in Massachusetts, I do believe Worldwatcher has already debunked that bovine feces. Look to the facts next time, not the anti gay spin from anti gay sites.

You need to accept the fact that gays are raising children. I've got a 12 and 14 year old and have given birth to three more children for a gay male couple. Guess what? Our kids are doing fine. In fact, all the reputable studies show that our children are at no disadvantage to children raised by heterosexuals. There is no difference in outcomes between straight and gay parents.

 

[Seawytch]

Procreation is something same sex couplings can't do.

Seems the demographic groups aren't equal to begin with.

And you again demonstrate your bigotry, and discrimination
. You insist that same sex couples are less valid than opposite sex couples, because they cannot procreate, and them insist, when it is pointed out that sterile opposite sex couples can't either, that this is different.

Why do you hate sterile people?

I don't hate sterile people

Are you claiming same sex coupling don't procreate due to sterility?

Crazy dood, absolutely crazy

What business is it of yours? If they want children, they can adopt.

So can opposite sex fertile couples, but same sex coupling cannot make a baby

Hmmmmmm, yep, huge difference, would you not agree?

I don't give a shit who wants to procreate, who doesn't, or who can't or won't. When it becomes the law that we must procreate, in order to marry, you let me know.

That'll be a long wait...but the fact that procreation is actually prohibited for some couples when they marry destroys all of Pop's silly little "arguments" about procreation and civil marriage.

 

[dcraelin]

Well I think your destroying the whole grounds for gay-marriage lawsuits if you think tax breaks are not rights.......that as I understand it is a key part of their argument. .......I was talking about single people without children, they should not be disadvantaged by not recieving tax breaks that married people get solely for being married.

Also...part of their argument is that 'they are born that way"....well then they are born without the capacity to have children in that relationship.....why should they argue they have the right to raise children then?

So you also disagree with tax breaks the wealthy get for owning airplanes, right?
Are you trying to argue that people who cannot procreate with each other naturally should not have children? You're going to cause an orphanage crisis with stupid rules like that.
Go ahead and end the tax breaks, we're still going to want civil marriage. Tax breaks are only one of over a thousand rights, benefits and privileges associated with legal, civil marriage. We've been marrying for decades...we've only just started getting the tax breaks a couple years ago. We'll survive.

Yes I do disagree with tax breaks the wealthy get for owning planes.
I think states, or private placement groups, should be allowed to decide not to place orphans or foster kids with gay couples without it being illegal. I doubt very much if it would cause an orphanage crisis.
Im glad we can probably agree not to hand out tax favors based solely on marriage status.
the Loving case was decided upon the greater popular national will expressed in the 13,15th and the surface,common sense intent of the 14th amendments.

Private placement groups do not have to place children with anyone they don't want. If, however, you take money from the Federal government or from a state with non discrimination laws that include gays and lesbians you don't get to discriminate against gays.
You said:

.well then they are born without the capacity to have children in that relationship.....why should they argue they have the right to raise children then?

That would leave out all infertile couples...you know, the ones that adopt children the most. Gays are not born with an inability to have children within their relationship. We're born gay, not infertile. (I've had five)
What Amendment was specifically cited in the Loving decision?

Regarding private placement groups, thats not what I've read regarding the Catholic church in Massachusetts for example.
There is differentiation between Infertile couples and gay-couples.....I doubt if most infertile couples were born that way...even if so tho, other aspects of their gender remain so that they mimic normal fertile couples.
Yes, I realize you can still be fertile and be gay, which I think maybe points away from the "born-that-way" idea but ...I think if you accept your gayness as being innate perhaps u should accept that you shouldn't raise children.

I happen to know a few infertile couples that were born that way, but still you only want to keep gays from adopting children. That's pretty bigoted, there fella.
As to the Catholic Charities in Massachusetts, I do believe Worldwatcher has already debunked that bovine feces. Look to the facts next time, not the anti gay spin from anti gay sites.
You need to accept the fact that gays are raising children. I've got a 12 and 14 year old and have given birth to three more children for a gay male couple. Guess what? Our kids are doing fine. In fact, all the reputable studies show that our children are at no disadvantage to children raised by heterosexuals. There is no difference in outcomes between straight and gay parents.

I've posted elsewhere links to how studies fail the public....a whole book has been written on the subject called "wrong"[title?]. I think especially on this kind of subject studies out of college campuses are biased,...in your direction. Regardless this isnt an issue that the courts should determine. I am sure you do the best you can with your children. I generally have less of a problem with lesbians raising children than with gay men. But I think the best environment for children is a heterosexual couple.

 

[bodecea]

What business is it of yours? If they want children, they can adopt.

So can opposite sex fertile couples, but same sex coupling cannot make a baby

Hmmmmmm, yep, huge difference, would you not agree?

I don't give a shit who wants to procreate, who doesn't, or who can't or won't. When it becomes the law that we must procreate, in order to marry, you let me know.

And the blind should be granted drivers licenses.

Okey dokey then.

How, pray tell do you get that from this discussion?

A blind person does not meet the criteria for getting a license....seeing road signs, seeing traffic, being able to look both ways before pulling out of a cross street, etc.

What criteria to legal marriage does a gay person/couple not meet?

O I C

Gays could always marry

Not always....but in many states we can now.