Gay marriage is not a constitutional right

[yiostheoy]

Same-sex marriage rights created by the Supreme Court court affects everyone. When the meaning of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are re-defined to appease the ideological play-thing of the day, we have lost the purpose of a written constitutions and the rule of law. We are Putin's Russia.

Same sex marriage rights were not 'created' by the Supreme Court.

That you think our Supreme Court ruling equals Putin's dictatorship just shows how out of touch with reality you are.

Same-sex marriage rights were created by the Supreme Court with Obergefell v. Hodges in 2015.

There is no constitutional basis for the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction over a state’s law or a state’s constitution. If there was a remote chance of jurisdiction, it would be limited to an Article I enumerated power under the supremacy clause, and there is nothing in Article I that comes close to congressional power over marriage.

There is no constitutional basis for the Obergefell ruling because the Fourteenth Amendment did not incorporate the Bill of Rights; substantive due process did not exist until the twentieth century, and the due process and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment regarded only judicial proceedings.

Interstate commerce -- you are forgetting about interstate commerce.

You are also forgetting about due process.

You would not have survived law school or the bar exam so you should give it up now.

 

[Tennyson]

Same-sex marriage rights created by the Supreme Court court affects everyone. When the meaning of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are re-defined to appease the ideological play-thing of the day, we have lost the purpose of a written constitutions and the rule of law. We are Putin's Russia.

Same sex marriage rights were not 'created' by the Supreme Court.

That you think our Supreme Court ruling equals Putin's dictatorship just shows how out of touch with reality you are.

Same-sex marriage rights were created by the Supreme Court with Obergefell v. Hodges in 2015.

There is no constitutional basis for the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction over a state’s law or a state’s constitution. If there was a remote chance of jurisdiction, it would be limited to an Article I enumerated power under the supremacy clause, and there is nothing in Article I that comes close to congressional power over marriage.

There is no constitutional basis for the Obergefell ruling because the Fourteenth Amendment did not incorporate the Bill of Rights; substantive due process did not exist until the twentieth century, and the due process and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment regarded only judicial proceedings.

Interstate commerce -- you are forgetting about interstate commerce.

You are also forgetting about due process.

You would not have survived law school or the bar exam so you should give it up now.

Explain to me interstate commerce vis-a-vis interstate commerce along with the definition and common usage of the word "commerce" and its intent and purpose.

I am pretty sure I did not forget procedural due process, which was the only type of due process in 1867, but if you want to help me out regarding a non-existent procedural due process, that would be nice.

 

[Syriusly]

Same-sex marriage rights created by the Supreme Court court affects everyone. When the meaning of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are re-defined to appease the ideological play-thing of the day, we have lost the purpose of a written constitutions and the rule of law. We are Putin's Russia.

Same sex marriage rights were not 'created' by the Supreme Court.

That you think our Supreme Court ruling equals Putin's dictatorship just shows how out of touch with reality you are.

Same-sex marriage rights were created by the Supreme Court with Obergefell v. Hodges in 2015.

There is no constitutional basis for the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction over a state’s law or a state’s constitution. If there was a remote chance of jurisdiction, it would be limited to an Article I enumerated power under the supremacy clause, and there is nothing in Article I that comes close to congressional power over marriage.

There is no constitutional basis for the Obergefell ruling because the Fourteenth Amendment did not incorporate the Bill of Rights; substantive due process did not exist until the twentieth century, and the due process and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment regarded only judicial proceedings.

Hmmm so much wrong there.

Same sex marriage rights were first recognized by the Massachusett's Supreme Court.on November 18, 2003- 13 years ago. Multiple states followed suite- both through state and federal courts, and through State legislatures.

The Constitutional basis for the Supreme Court's jurisdiction was recognized a long time ago- most notably in Loving v. Virginia- when the Supreme Court for the first of many times overturned an unconstitutional State marriage law.

As far as the rest of your Fourteenth Amendment babble- take it to the Supreme Court- along with how income taxes are unconstitutional.

 

[Tennyson]

Same-sex marriage rights created by the Supreme Court court affects everyone. When the meaning of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are re-defined to appease the ideological play-thing of the day, we have lost the purpose of a written constitutions and the rule of law. We are Putin's Russia.

Same sex marriage rights were not 'created' by the Supreme Court.

That you think our Supreme Court ruling equals Putin's dictatorship just shows how out of touch with reality you are.

Same-sex marriage rights were created by the Supreme Court with Obergefell v. Hodges in 2015.

There is no constitutional basis for the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction over a state’s law or a state’s constitution. If there was a remote chance of jurisdiction, it would be limited to an Article I enumerated power under the supremacy clause, and there is nothing in Article I that comes close to congressional power over marriage.

There is no constitutional basis for the Obergefell ruling because the Fourteenth Amendment did not incorporate the Bill of Rights; substantive due process did not exist until the twentieth century, and the due process and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment regarded only judicial proceedings.

Hmmm so much wrong there.

Same sex marriage rights were first recognized by the Massachusett's Supreme Court.on November 18, 2003- 13 years ago. Multiple states followed suite- both through state and federal courts, and through State legislatures.

The Constitutional basis for the Supreme Court's jurisdiction was recognized a long time ago- most notably in Loving v. Virginia- when the Supreme Court for the first of many times overturned an unconstitutional State marriage law.

As far as the rest of your Fourteenth Amendment babble- take it to the Supreme Court- along with how income taxes are unconstitutional.

What is not part of the exchange:

A state Supreme Court ruling.

A Supreme Court ruling unless you can articulate and explain the constitutional basis.

What is part of the exchange you avoided:

Explain to me interstate commerce vis-a-vis interstate commerce along with the definition and common usage of the word "commerce" and its intent and purpose.

I am pretty sure I did not forget procedural due process, which was the only type of due process in 1867, but if you want to help me out regarding a non-existent procedural due process, that would be nice.

 

[Syriusly]

Same-sex marriage rights created by the Supreme Court court affects everyone. When the meaning of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are re-defined to appease the ideological play-thing of the day, we have lost the purpose of a written constitutions and the rule of law. We are Putin's Russia.

Same sex marriage rights were not 'created' by the Supreme Court.

That you think our Supreme Court ruling equals Putin's dictatorship just shows how out of touch with reality you are.

Same-sex marriage rights were created by the Supreme Court with Obergefell v. Hodges in 2015.

There is no constitutional basis for the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction over a state’s law or a state’s constitution. If there was a remote chance of jurisdiction, it would be limited to an Article I enumerated power under the supremacy clause, and there is nothing in Article I that comes close to congressional power over marriage.

There is no constitutional basis for the Obergefell ruling because the Fourteenth Amendment did not incorporate the Bill of Rights; substantive due process did not exist until the twentieth century, and the due process and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment regarded only judicial proceedings.

Hmmm so much wrong there.

Same sex marriage rights were first recognized by the Massachusett's Supreme Court.on November 18, 2003- 13 years ago. Multiple states followed suite- both through state and federal courts, and through State legislatures.

The Constitutional basis for the Supreme Court's jurisdiction was recognized a long time ago- most notably in Loving v. Virginia- when the Supreme Court for the first of many times overturned an unconstitutional State marriage law.

As far as the rest of your Fourteenth Amendment babble- take it to the Supreme Court- along with how income taxes are unconstitutional.

What is not part of the exchange:

A state Supreme Court ruling.

A Supreme Court ruling unless you can articulate and explain the constitutional basis.

What is part of the exchange you avoided:

Explain to me interstate commerce vis-a-vis interstate commerce along with the definition and common usage of the word "commerce" and its intent and purpose.

I am pretty sure I did not forget procedural due process, which was the only type of due process in 1867, but if you want to help me out regarding a non-existent procedural due process, that would be nice.

What the hell are you talking about? What exchange? I didn't mention interstate commerce and that is not part of any of the Supreme Court's rulings on marriage.

You go back to your delusions that the Supreme Court doesn't have the authority to do what it has been doing for the last 50 years.

 

[Tennyson]

Same-sex marriage rights created by the Supreme Court court affects everyone. When the meaning of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are re-defined to appease the ideological play-thing of the day, we have lost the purpose of a written constitutions and the rule of law. We are Putin's Russia.

Same sex marriage rights were not 'created' by the Supreme Court.

That you think our Supreme Court ruling equals Putin's dictatorship just shows how out of touch with reality you are.

Same-sex marriage rights were created by the Supreme Court with Obergefell v. Hodges in 2015.

There is no constitutional basis for the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction over a state’s law or a state’s constitution. If there was a remote chance of jurisdiction, it would be limited to an Article I enumerated power under the supremacy clause, and there is nothing in Article I that comes close to congressional power over marriage.

There is no constitutional basis for the Obergefell ruling because the Fourteenth Amendment did not incorporate the Bill of Rights; substantive due process did not exist until the twentieth century, and the due process and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment regarded only judicial proceedings.

Hmmm so much wrong there.

Same sex marriage rights were first recognized by the Massachusett's Supreme Court.on November 18, 2003- 13 years ago. Multiple states followed suite- both through state and federal courts, and through State legislatures.

The Constitutional basis for the Supreme Court's jurisdiction was recognized a long time ago- most notably in Loving v. Virginia- when the Supreme Court for the first of many times overturned an unconstitutional State marriage law.

As far as the rest of your Fourteenth Amendment babble- take it to the Supreme Court- along with how income taxes are unconstitutional.

What is not part of the exchange:

A state Supreme Court ruling.

A Supreme Court ruling unless you can articulate and explain the constitutional basis.

What is part of the exchange you avoided:

Explain to me interstate commerce vis-a-vis interstate commerce along with the definition and common usage of the word "commerce" and its intent and purpose.

I am pretty sure I did not forget procedural due process, which was the only type of due process in 1867, but if you want to help me out regarding a non-existent procedural due process, that would be nice.

What the hell are you talking about? What exchange? I didn't mention interstate commerce and that is not part of any of the Supreme Court's rulings on marriage.

You go back to your delusions that the Supreme Court doesn't have the authority to do what it has been doing for the last 50 years.

Fantastic. Good luck with Wikipedia.

 

[emilynghiem]

Equating two people of the same sex who cannot procreate with two people of different races is absurd and a misinterpretation of "separate but equal".

Marriage and sex are about procreation as far as society is concerned; the reason that states grant couples legal marriage privilidges is because it incentivites them to start a family which ideally will contribute to the economy and society.

Since gays cannot make children it defeats the whole purpose of offering them marriage incentives to begin with; therefore there is no reason for the state to do it; not to mention that allowing gays to adopt children puts the children in an unnatural environment which is likely harmful to them.

Therefore the Supreme court's ruling would best be overturned with a Constitutional amendment placing marriage solely in the hands of the states.

Dear IndependantAce

Gay Marriage, like any other marriage rite, is protected under religious freedom to exercise the rituals, beliefs and traditions of one's choice and spiritual identity and affiliation.

We don't need to politicize this, but we do need public education and agreement
what constitutes a faith based belief, so that we quit fighting over whose beliefs
are right or wrong, or should or should not be endorsed and established by govt.

The only beliefs that can be established by govt are ones we all agree on.
such as believing in "justice" which is a faith based concept, yet our legal system
is based on faith in this "justice" which nobody has ever seen or accomplished
but it remains a faith based concept. Because we agree, it's okay to have a govt
system built around that.

But if we don't agree, such as on
Christianity, atheism, same sex or transgender policies,
then no, we can't abuse govt to establish one sides' beliefs over the dissenting sides.

Or else that's discrimination and not equal protection of all people's beliefs neutrally.

 

[emilynghiem]

Equating two people of the same sex who cannot procreate with two people of different races is absurd and a misinterpretation of "separate but equal".

Marriage and sex are about procreation as far as society is concerned; the reason that states grant couples legal marriage privilidges is because it incentivites them to start a family which ideally will contribute to the economy and society.

Since gays cannot make children it defeats the whole purpose of offering them marriage incentives to begin with; therefore there is no reason for the state to do it; not to mention that allowing gays to adopt children puts the children in an unnatural environment which is likely harmful to them.

Therefore the Supreme court's ruling would best be overturned with a Constitutional amendment placing marriage solely in the hands of the states.

P.S. as for the beliefs about "Equating two people of the same sex who cannot procreate with two people of different races is absurd and a misinterpretation of "separate but equal".

People have the right to believe that traditional and same sex marriages/relationships are equal.

Just NOT the right to impose this through govt on everyone else.

Regardless if beliefs are right or wrong, people have equal rights to exercise
their beliefs without being discriminated, harassed, excluded or penalized by law.

So if we want to promote respect for beliefs against gay marriage and homosexuality,
neither should we be in the business of bashing people for their beliefs and putting these down. Otherwise the bashing goes back and forth in endless circles and gets nowhere.

 

[Skylar]

It's not now that the USSC has redefined the definition of marriage.

Like when they 'changed the definition of marriage' in States with restrictions on interracial marriage?

All you're doing is arbitrarily labeling your favorite definition of marriage the 'one true definition'. And anything that doesn't conform to your arbitrary choice must be a 'change in the meaning of marriage.

But that's not actually an argument, as there's nothing sacrosanct about your personal preferences. Marriage has taken many, many forms. You choosing to ignore anything but your preference doesn't make the others magically disappear.

Silliness- marriage throughout history was never defined as union between 2 people of the same race, it was defined as a union between a man a woman. The race card you are playing is a legal/cultural difference specific to certain countries or cultures, not uniform in the commonly recognized definition. Perhaps you can expand your thinking to include countries and cultures outside of the US when considering the definition of marriage.

Marriage through out history has been all sorts of things. Its been the union of one man and many women. Or one man and one woman. Or a union of children. Its been defined by race, language, religion. Its been a union of equals. Its been grossly assymetrical where women were essentially property of their husbands. Its been a union that people entered into willingly. Its been arranged by parents or religious leaders regardless of consent.

The idea that the version of marriage most convenient to your argument is the only 'true' definition is demonstrable nonsense.

Marriage is, and always has been, whatever we say it is. We invented it. It exists to service our society. It is not, nor has ever been an immutable constant. But differs on the society, the time period, and time periods within the same society.

Making your 'one true and only definition of marriage' standard just arbitrary. And limiting no society, law or court in applying marriage in a fashion that is consistent with that society's values.

And we always said it is the lifetime union of a man and a woman. Always. That three or four or five justices say different, along with the Hollywood elite and various billionaires cannot change that.

The SCOTUS deciding 5 to 4 on this issue simply means there is no reasonable answer either way, only a political answer.

So why are morons here arguing about it?

Just to hear themselves talking obviously.

Obergefell v. Hodges - Wikipedia

Says who? Not our constitution. The authority to apply the judicial power rests with the Judiciary. The Judiciary is led by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court ruled. Thus, the Judiciary applied the Judicial power in accordance with the constitution.

 

[Skylar]

Equating two people of the same sex who cannot procreate with two people of different races is absurd and a misinterpretation of "separate but equal".

Marriage and sex are about procreation as far as society is concerned; the reason that states grant couples legal marriage privilidges is because it incentivites them to start a family which ideally will contribute to the economy and society.

Since gays cannot make children it defeats the whole purpose of offering them marriage incentives to begin with; therefore there is no reason for the state to do it; not to mention that allowing gays to adopt children puts the children in an unnatural environment which is likely harmful to them.

Therefore the Supreme court's ruling would best be overturned with a Constitutional amendment placing marriage solely in the hands of the states.

P.S. as for the beliefs about "Equating two people of the same sex who cannot procreate with two people of different races is absurd and a misinterpretation of "separate but equal".

Procreation isn't a requirement for anyone's marriage. Making it irrelevant to any discussion of what is required for the validity of a marriage.

People have the right to believe that traditional and same sex marriages/relationships are equal.

Just NOT the right to impose this through govt on everyone else.

No one is forcing anyone to get married....gay, straight or otherwise. Nixing the 'imposing through government' argument. Marriage is completely voluntary. Gay, straight or otherwise.

Regardless if beliefs are right or wrong, people have equal rights to exercise their beliefs without being discriminated, harassed, excluded or penalized by law.

Not using the force of government they don't. As the power of government is limited by the rights of people. And the right to marry cannot be abrogated because you 'believe' otherwise.

 

[emilynghiem]

Equating two people of the same sex who cannot procreate with two people of different races is absurd and a misinterpretation of "separate but equal".

Marriage and sex are about procreation as far as society is concerned; the reason that states grant couples legal marriage privilidges is because it incentivites them to start a family which ideally will contribute to the economy and society.

Since gays cannot make children it defeats the whole purpose of offering them marriage incentives to begin with; therefore there is no reason for the state to do it; not to mention that allowing gays to adopt children puts the children in an unnatural environment which is likely harmful to them.

Therefore the Supreme court's ruling would best be overturned with a Constitutional amendment placing marriage solely in the hands of the states.

P.S. as for the beliefs about "Equating two people of the same sex who cannot procreate with two people of different races is absurd and a misinterpretation of "separate but equal".

Procreation isn't a requirement for anyone's marriage. Making it irrelevant to any discussion of what is required for the validity of a marriage.

People have the right to believe that traditional and same sex marriages/relationships are equal.

Just NOT the right to impose this through govt on everyone else.

No one is forcing anyone to get married....gay, straight or otherwise. Nixing the 'imposing through government' argument. Marriage is completely voluntary. Gay, straight or otherwise.

Regardless if beliefs are right or wrong, people have equal rights to exercise their beliefs without being discriminated, harassed, excluded or penalized by law.

Not using the force of government they don't. As the power of government is limited by the rights of people. And the right to marry cannot be abrogated because you 'believe' otherwise.

Dear Skylar
1. I agree that nobody's beliefs or 'requirement" for marriage should be pushed through govt!

To uphold this principle equally and consistently for both sides of these arguments, then ALL marriage should be removed from govt, kept personal and private, and only endorse CIVIL CONTRACTS that are secular and make no reference to social conditions or relationships. As long as parties to an agreement are legal competent and consenting, they should be able to enter into and enforce a civil contract.

THAT level can be endorsed by govt and enforced equally for all parties without discrimination. But if people can't agre e on social relationships for "marriage" then leave that part out and not make it a requirement to enter into domestic contract for partnership, guardianship, estate, custody, etc.

Keep it neutral and secular, keep out any reference to faith based beliefs that would impose exclude or discriminate or favor one side or set of beliefs over another. So it is equally accessible and applicable to all cases where nobody's rights are more or less than anyone else's.

2. PLEASE NOTE:
having Crosses on buildings
isn't forcing anyone to be Christian.

Yet Crosses are REMOVED from public property
due to separation of church and state/religious fre edom
where govt should be not abused to establish or endorse a belief

Same with removing references to Creation, prayer, etc.

Just because it isn't "forcing" anyone and isn't "causing any direct harm" does not justify abusing govt to implement
faith based institutions.

So this should be consistent.

If Christian beliefs cannot be pushed through govt,
then neither should beliefs about homosexuality
or transgender identity that are faith based
and/or considered 'behavior of choice' that not everyone has to accept.

Since people do not agree on these beliefs,
they remain private choice and outside govt jurisdiction to decide.

If people want protection from harassment exclusion or discrimination, it should be equally acknowledged for BELIEFS on all sides REGARDLESS of the content or bias of that belief either for or against. But not let either side abuse govt to endorse one sides beliefs over the other!

 

[Skylar]

Equating two people of the same sex who cannot procreate with two people of different races is absurd and a misinterpretation of "separate but equal".

Marriage and sex are about procreation as far as society is concerned; the reason that states grant couples legal marriage privilidges is because it incentivites them to start a family which ideally will contribute to the economy and society.

Since gays cannot make children it defeats the whole purpose of offering them marriage incentives to begin with; therefore there is no reason for the state to do it; not to mention that allowing gays to adopt children puts the children in an unnatural environment which is likely harmful to them.

Therefore the Supreme court's ruling would best be overturned with a Constitutional amendment placing marriage solely in the hands of the states.

P.S. as for the beliefs about "Equating two people of the same sex who cannot procreate with two people of different races is absurd and a misinterpretation of "separate but equal".

Procreation isn't a requirement for anyone's marriage. Making it irrelevant to any discussion of what is required for the validity of a marriage.

People have the right to believe that traditional and same sex marriages/relationships are equal.

Just NOT the right to impose this through govt on everyone else.

No one is forcing anyone to get married....gay, straight or otherwise. Nixing the 'imposing through government' argument. Marriage is completely voluntary. Gay, straight or otherwise.

Regardless if beliefs are right or wrong, people have equal rights to exercise their beliefs without being discriminated, harassed, excluded or penalized by law.

Not using the force of government they don't. As the power of government is limited by the rights of people. And the right to marry cannot be abrogated because you 'believe' otherwise.

Dear Skylar
1. I agree that nobody's beliefs or 'requirement" for marriage should be pushed through govt!

You're agreeing with yourself then. As I've said clearly that rights trump government powers. And when you try to use your 'believe' to abrogate someone else's rights using government, the constitution stops you.

Remember, you put 'belief' up on this bizarre absolutist pedestal. But neither the law nor the constitution does. Which is why so many court rulings and laws are at odds with your assessment of the authority of 'belief'.

'Belief' has no authority. Rights do.

If Christian beliefs cannot be pushed through govt,
then neither should beliefs about homosexuality
or transgender identity that are faith based
and/or considered 'behavior of choice' that not everyone has to accept.

Belief isn't a basis of authority. It never has been. You've imagined it. Thus, your 'belief should trump rights' nonsense has no rational application in the real world.

As no, Emily....your beliefs do not allow you to override anyone else's rights.

You keep coming to the same fallacy again and again, concluding that since each side of the gay marriage issue is a 'belief', that neither side should prevail. The problem with that assessment....is rights. Gays and lesbians have the right to marry. And their rights can't be abrogated by your beliefs.

See how that works?

 

[emilynghiem]

Equating two people of the same sex who cannot procreate with two people of different races is absurd and a misinterpretation of "separate but equal".

Marriage and sex are about procreation as far as society is concerned; the reason that states grant couples legal marriage privilidges is because it incentivites them to start a family which ideally will contribute to the economy and society.

Since gays cannot make children it defeats the whole purpose of offering them marriage incentives to begin with; therefore there is no reason for the state to do it; not to mention that allowing gays to adopt children puts the children in an unnatural environment which is likely harmful to them.

Therefore the Supreme court's ruling would best be overturned with a Constitutional amendment placing marriage solely in the hands of the states.

P.S. as for the beliefs about "Equating two people of the same sex who cannot procreate with two people of different races is absurd and a misinterpretation of "separate but equal".

Procreation isn't a requirement for anyone's marriage. Making it irrelevant to any discussion of what is required for the validity of a marriage.

People have the right to believe that traditional and same sex marriages/relationships are equal.

Just NOT the right to impose this through govt on everyone else.

No one is forcing anyone to get married....gay, straight or otherwise. Nixing the 'imposing through government' argument. Marriage is completely voluntary. Gay, straight or otherwise.

Regardless if beliefs are right or wrong, people have equal rights to exercise their beliefs without being discriminated, harassed, excluded or penalized by law.

Not using the force of government they don't. As the power of government is limited by the rights of people. And the right to marry cannot be abrogated because you 'believe' otherwise.

Dear Skylar
1. I agree that nobody's beliefs or 'requirement" for marriage should be pushed through govt!

You're agreeing with yourself then. As I've said clearly that rights trump government powers. And when you try to use your 'believe' to abrogate someone else's rights using government, the constitution stops you.

Remember, you put 'belief' up on this bizarre absolutist pedestal. But neither the law nor the constitution does. Which is why so many court rulings and laws are at odds with your assessment of the authority of 'belief'.

'Belief' has no authority. Rights do.

If Christian beliefs cannot be pushed through govt,
then neither should beliefs about homosexuality
or transgender identity that are faith based
and/or considered 'behavior of choice' that not everyone has to accept.

Belief isn't a basis of authority. It never has been. You've imagined it. Thus, your 'belief should trump rights' nonsense has no rational application in the real world.

As no, Emily....your beliefs do not allow you to override anyone else's rights.

You keep coming to the same fallacy again and again, concluding that since each side of the gay marriage issue is a 'belief', that neither side should prevail. The problem with that assessment....is rights. Gays and lesbians have the right to marry. And their rights can't be abrogated by your beliefs.

See how that works?

Dear Skylar
I think we agree in principle but you are calling things rights and saying I am calling them beliefs.
They are both.

The belief in "right to life" as starting at conception
or belief in right to health care THROUGH GOVT
are both political beliefs.

Because people have different beliefs on these, that's why not everyone agre es they are default rights.

To you, if you believe it is by default, then to you it is a right.

But neither you nor I would agre e with govt
"mandating the right to life as starting at conception"
just because someone else believes it is an inherent right.

So you and I agre e on that PRINCIPLE
but you may not agree with which cases I apply it to.

You and I are just stating it differently.

That's fine, you have the right to defend your beliefs as a right.

I find it more constitutionally consistent to defend
rights to marriage under "religious freedom"

But if you don't believe in expressing it that way, you don't have to.

the reason I find it more consistent to do so
is that THIS WAY
*CAN ACCOMMODATE*
both the beliefs in traditional marriage only
and the beliefs that you have, to o.

If your way of framing "right to marriage"
excludes and conflicts with the beliefs of others,
then that ISN'T UNIVERSAL.

So since I believe Govt should take the more universal
inclusive approach that treats all beliefs equally on the issue of marriage,
then treating all such beliefs EQUALLY under religious freedom
would mean equal protection of the laws for all people.

That's why I enforce that route, because it includes all beliefs including yours.
While your way conflicts and excludes other ways,
so it isn't the most inclusive and universal approach.

 

[emilynghiem]

Here Skylar
I drew you a diagram of the different ranges and realms of people's viewpoints.

Since govt and public institutions are supposed to include and protect people equally regardless of beliefs,
then people like you who believe marriage is a right on the level of other Constitutional rights are in one group.
People who disagree and believe otherwise, even rejecting one form of marriage or another, are in other groups.
And I believe in treating and including all such beliefs equally.

So my goal is to work toward the OUTER SQUARE that accommodates all views even if they conflict with each other.

If you are content to hold onto and only enforce your belief, excluding and in conflict with others,
then your circle or square cannot include all the other people.

So I argue that cannot be the govt position.

The govt position has to remain neutral, treating ALL beliefs equally, and thus either staying out of the issue
[so everyone is equally free to exercise and enforce their beliefs without govt taking sides and endorsing one over others]
or including all views and beliefs on the issue in forming a consensus on policy
and where these AGREE then everyone consents to let THOSE points of agreement represent public policy for all people.

Two notes on this marriage issue
* I'd say either separate marriage from govt and stick to civil unions and domestic partnership agre ements that are neutral in language
* OR perhaps states can pass a resolution
by which the populations of each state AGRE E to let
other beliefs about marriage in, such as letting the state endorse same sex marriage although that's against many people's beliefs,
in exchange for allowing public institutions to include
references and practices involving:
God, Jesus, Christianity, the Bible, prayer, creation, abstinence in sex education, etc.
that are against other people's beliefs.

Maybe we can call a truce and allow for diversity of beliefs
in govt if people are going to push the Transgender issue and Same Sex Marriage
against the beliefs of people, then why not allow Govt to endorse all manner
of "faith based beliefs" that people believe in defending the same way the LGBT lobby has pushed those beliefs into govt, law and public policy.

That's a possibility, too.

Maybe Christians would tolerate this better if
* it is acknowledged that this is against their beliefs
* in return for acknowledging that Christian prayer and Biblical reference
are also against people's beliefs, but that these will no longer be barred from govt and public institutions.

 

[Syriusly]

Same sex marriage rights were not 'created' by the Supreme Court.

That you think our Supreme Court ruling equals Putin's dictatorship just shows how out of touch with reality you are.

Same-sex marriage rights were created by the Supreme Court with Obergefell v. Hodges in 2015.

There is no constitutional basis for the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction over a state’s law or a state’s constitution. If there was a remote chance of jurisdiction, it would be limited to an Article I enumerated power under the supremacy clause, and there is nothing in Article I that comes close to congressional power over marriage.

There is no constitutional basis for the Obergefell ruling because the Fourteenth Amendment did not incorporate the Bill of Rights; substantive due process did not exist until the twentieth century, and the due process and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment regarded only judicial proceedings.

Hmmm so much wrong there.

Same sex marriage rights were first recognized by the Massachusett's Supreme Court.on November 18, 2003- 13 years ago. Multiple states followed suite- both through state and federal courts, and through State legislatures.

The Constitutional basis for the Supreme Court's jurisdiction was recognized a long time ago- most notably in Loving v. Virginia- when the Supreme Court for the first of many times overturned an unconstitutional State marriage law.

As far as the rest of your Fourteenth Amendment babble- take it to the Supreme Court- along with how income taxes are unconstitutional.

What is not part of the exchange:

A state Supreme Court ruling.

A Supreme Court ruling unless you can articulate and explain the constitutional basis.

What is part of the exchange you avoided:

Explain to me interstate commerce vis-a-vis interstate commerce along with the definition and common usage of the word "commerce" and its intent and purpose.

I am pretty sure I did not forget procedural due process, which was the only type of due process in 1867, but if you want to help me out regarding a non-existent procedural due process, that would be nice.

What the hell are you talking about? What exchange? I didn't mention interstate commerce and that is not part of any of the Supreme Court's rulings on marriage.

You go back to your delusions that the Supreme Court doesn't have the authority to do what it has been doing for the last 50 years.

Fantastic. Good luck with Wikipedia.

It is fantastic.

People in love are getting married in all 50 states.

Life is good.

 

[Skylar]

View attachment 95419

Here Skylar
I drew you a diagram of the different ranges and realms of people's viewpoints.

Since govt and public institutions are supposed to include and protect people equally regardless of beliefs,
then people like you who believe marriage is a right on the level of other Constitutional rights are in one group.

How does recognizing marriage for same sex couples strip anyone who disagrees of any right?

Having a different 'belief' doesn't mean you can strip people of their rights, Emily. This is the part you've never understood; a belief alone has no authority. So if you have a belief and I have a belief, there's no mandate that any public institution represent them both equally.

You keep pretending that such an imaginary mandate exists. And it never has. Not in the law, our history, our constitution. Just your imagination.

People who disagree and believe otherwise, even rejecting one form of marriage or another, are in other groups.
And I believe in treating and including all such beliefs equally.

And your belief vs. someone else's rights has the same outcome: their rights win.

You having a 'belief' doesn't grant you any special power to strip anyone of any right.

So my goal is to work toward the OUTER SQUARE that accommodates all views even if they conflict with each other.

Same problem as always: there is no such mandate for the representation of all beliefs in any democracy. Beliefs compete. Compete with each other, compete with rights. And rights trump belief.

You've never understood how democracy works, how rights work. And keep awkwardly trying to elevate 'belief' alone to some sacrosanct status that must be represented and given authority.

Um, no. If you have a stupid belief, we're not doing that. Stupid according to who? Our laws, our people and our constitution.

 

[Skylar]

Equating two people of the same sex who cannot procreate with two people of different races is absurd and a misinterpretation of "separate but equal".

Marriage and sex are about procreation as far as society is concerned; the reason that states grant couples legal marriage privilidges is because it incentivites them to start a family which ideally will contribute to the economy and society.

Since gays cannot make children it defeats the whole purpose of offering them marriage incentives to begin with; therefore there is no reason for the state to do it; not to mention that allowing gays to adopt children puts the children in an unnatural environment which is likely harmful to them.

Therefore the Supreme court's ruling would best be overturned with a Constitutional amendment placing marriage solely in the hands of the states.

P.S. as for the beliefs about "Equating two people of the same sex who cannot procreate with two people of different races is absurd and a misinterpretation of "separate but equal".

Procreation isn't a requirement for anyone's marriage. Making it irrelevant to any discussion of what is required for the validity of a marriage.

People have the right to believe that traditional and same sex marriages/relationships are equal.

Just NOT the right to impose this through govt on everyone else.

No one is forcing anyone to get married....gay, straight or otherwise. Nixing the 'imposing through government' argument. Marriage is completely voluntary. Gay, straight or otherwise.

Regardless if beliefs are right or wrong, people have equal rights to exercise their beliefs without being discriminated, harassed, excluded or penalized by law.

Not using the force of government they don't. As the power of government is limited by the rights of people. And the right to marry cannot be abrogated because you 'believe' otherwise.

Dear Skylar
1. I agree that nobody's beliefs or 'requirement" for marriage should be pushed through govt!

You're agreeing with yourself then. As I've said clearly that rights trump government powers. And when you try to use your 'believe' to abrogate someone else's rights using government, the constitution stops you.

Remember, you put 'belief' up on this bizarre absolutist pedestal. But neither the law nor the constitution does. Which is why so many court rulings and laws are at odds with your assessment of the authority of 'belief'.

'Belief' has no authority. Rights do.

If Christian beliefs cannot be pushed through govt,
then neither should beliefs about homosexuality
or transgender identity that are faith based
and/or considered 'behavior of choice' that not everyone has to accept.

Belief isn't a basis of authority. It never has been. You've imagined it. Thus, your 'belief should trump rights' nonsense has no rational application in the real world.

As no, Emily....your beliefs do not allow you to override anyone else's rights.

You keep coming to the same fallacy again and again, concluding that since each side of the gay marriage issue is a 'belief', that neither side should prevail. The problem with that assessment....is rights. Gays and lesbians have the right to marry. And their rights can't be abrogated by your beliefs.

See how that works?

Dear Skylar
I think we agree in principle but you are calling things rights and saying I am calling them beliefs.
They are both.

Nope. Beliefs and rights aren't the same thing. And no, we don't agree in principle. Rights trump beliefs. If you believe that gays should never been allowed to marry....and gays have the right to marry, they win.

That you have a 'belief' doesn't, in any way, provide you with any authority to strip any person of any right. Your conception of 'beliefs' is imaginary nonsense that has no reflection in the real world. As your equating rights and beliefs demonstrates.

I'm sorry, Emily....but your beliefs impart no authority on your position, mandate no recognition or representation by any public institution, nor grant you the ability to abrogate any right.

If your way of framing "right to marriage"
excludes and conflicts with the beliefs of others,
then that ISN'T UNIVERSAL.

Nor does it need to be 'universal'. Again, there's no mandate that all beliefs be equally represented.

Your position that all beliefs must be equally represented by public institutions.....is completely and utterly imaginary. There is no such mandate. Nor has their ever been. When beliefs compete, there are winners and losers.

 

[emilynghiem]

View attachment 95419

Here Skylar
I drew you a diagram of the different ranges and realms of people's viewpoints.

Since govt and public institutions are supposed to include and protect people equally regardless of beliefs,
then people like you who believe marriage is a right on the level of other Constitutional rights are in one group.

How does recognizing marriage for same sex couples strip anyone who disagrees of any right?

Having a different 'belief' doesn't mean you can strip people of their rights, Emily. This is the part you've never understood; a belief alone has no authority. So if you have a belief and I have a belief, there's no mandate that any public institution represent them both equally.

You keep pretending that such an imaginary mandate exists. And it never has. Not in the law, our history, our constitution. Just your imagination.

People who disagree and believe otherwise, even rejecting one form of marriage or another, are in other groups.
And I believe in treating and including all such beliefs equally.

And your belief vs. someone else's rights has the same outcome: their rights win.

You having a 'belief' doesn't grant you any special power to strip anyone of any right.

So my goal is to work toward the OUTER SQUARE that accommodates all views even if they conflict with each other.

Same problem as always: there is no such mandate for the representation of all beliefs in any democracy. Beliefs compete. Compete with each other, compete with rights. And rights trump belief.

You've never understood how democracy works, how rights work. And keep awkwardly trying to elevate 'belief' alone to some sacrosanct status that must be represented and given authority.

Um, no. If you have a stupid belief, we're not doing that. Stupid according to who? Our laws, our people and our constitution.

Dear Skylar
It doesn't HAVE to "strip someone of their rights"
to be a violation of the principle behind separation of church and state.

If people don't consent to a belief that's enough.
I cited examples of atheists or religious freedom groups
suing to "remove crosses" from public property.
Based on PRINCIPLE alone.

Nobody's religious freedom is "stripped" by having those crosses.
In one case, a group across the country sued to remove crosses from a teacher's memorial plaque
that they don't even look at. That image is not oppressing them or stripping anyone of rights.
But on principle alone, they argued that it couldn't be on public school property.

So I'm saying to be consistent.

If everyone practices the marriage beliefs of their choice
and agrees that the state can endorse "civil unions" and "domestic partnerships"
with NO references to social relationships at all,
then that is not stripping anyone of rights but recognizing everyone's freedom equally.

However, if either group pushes for either "traditional marriage only"
to be endorsed by the state against the beliefs of others that same sex couples should be included
or "same sex marriage" to be endorsed by the state against the beliefs of others that marriage is not for same sex couples,
then both groups rightfully argue that this "violates separation of church and state."

No particular degree of harm is required to make this argument.
No stripping of rights or beliefs is needed to make this argument.

Sure it makes it worse if there are degrees of harm or damage, which add to the argument.
But the principle alone is enough to argue the state has no such authority.

BTW after hearing from people on both sides who just cannot tolerate or imagine
that the other belief/viewpoint has any validity whatsoever,
I am convinced that people cannot help having their beliefs about this.
and what I will recommend to the Governor and Senators of Texas (and party leaders)
is to call for a conference on this and a resolution:
* either agree to use neutral terms in public policies for "civil unions" "domestic partnership"
"custody or guardianship contracts" etc. and remove the term "marriage" if this
carries connotations that violate people's beliefs (similar to removing references to God or Jesus)
* or agree to SEPARATE funding by party, on health care, marriage benefits
and conditions on welfare (where people don't agree on the terms and conditions
due to religious and political beliefs) and only establish as public policy the
programs and conditions that all people agree on as representing everyone's values.
* or agree to "trade concessions" if it's too hard to separate and secularize everything:
such as if people are going to include same sex marriage in sex education
and in marriage and benefits, then ALSO let references to God, Jesus, creation,
spiritual healing, Bibles, crosses, heaven and hell, etc. be included in public institutions
and textbooks, public services, property, buildings, activities etc.

If people AGREE to a policy regarding beliefs, then it's okay to enact and endorse
that on a state level if all the people consent. SINCE BELIEFS ARE INVOLVED
THAT GOVT HAS NO AUTHORITY TO REGULATE OR MANDATE, and which only
the people can choose freely to adopt endorse and enforce.

It's not okay to bully people into changing their beliefs or accepting things
against their beliefs by forcing that through govt. It has to be by the people's consent,
and/or to keep the policies local or private where consent and free choice can still be respected.

If consensus can be established on the collective level of city, party, state, etc.
then that's perfectly fine to endorse that for the members who agree to that.

So that's what I would recommend to heads of govt and parties.
To call for a truce on political beliefs, and agreement to respect consent and beliefs
of all people and parties without harassment, penalty or other duress/coercion,
and either to separate policies by party, agree on neutral and universally inclusive language
and points/principles that all parties AGREE is fair to enforce as public policy,
or agree to mutual concessions so that beliefs are treated equally (instead of
excluding/penalizing one set while endorsing and establishing the other which isn't equal).

 

[Skylar]

View attachment 95419

Here Skylar
I drew you a diagram of the different ranges and realms of people's viewpoints.

Since govt and public institutions are supposed to include and protect people equally regardless of beliefs,
then people like you who believe marriage is a right on the level of other Constitutional rights are in one group.

How does recognizing marriage for same sex couples strip anyone who disagrees of any right?

Having a different 'belief' doesn't mean you can strip people of their rights, Emily. This is the part you've never understood; a belief alone has no authority. So if you have a belief and I have a belief, there's no mandate that any public institution represent them both equally.

You keep pretending that such an imaginary mandate exists. And it never has. Not in the law, our history, our constitution. Just your imagination.

People who disagree and believe otherwise, even rejecting one form of marriage or another, are in other groups.
And I believe in treating and including all such beliefs equally.

And your belief vs. someone else's rights has the same outcome: their rights win.

You having a 'belief' doesn't grant you any special power to strip anyone of any right.

So my goal is to work toward the OUTER SQUARE that accommodates all views even if they conflict with each other.

Same problem as always: there is no such mandate for the representation of all beliefs in any democracy. Beliefs compete. Compete with each other, compete with rights. And rights trump belief.

You've never understood how democracy works, how rights work. And keep awkwardly trying to elevate 'belief' alone to some sacrosanct status that must be represented and given authority.

Um, no. If you have a stupid belief, we're not doing that. Stupid according to who? Our laws, our people and our constitution.

Dear Skylar
It doesn't HAVE to "strip someone of their rights"
to be a violation of the principle behind separation of church and state.

How does gay marriage have a thing to do with the 'separation of church and state'?

Again, you can any belief you want. But it doesn't mean that your view must be represented anywhere. Let alone in public institutions, our law, or our constitution.

If you don't believe in gay marriage, don't have one. But denying a gay or lesbian couple the right to marry because *you* have a belief is ludicrous. As they have a right to marry. And your 'belief' doesn't have any authority over their rights.

However, if either group pushes for either "traditional marriage only" to be endorsed by the state against the beliefs of others that same sex couples should be included
or "same sex marriage" to be endorsed by the state against the beliefs of others that marriage is not for same sex couples,
then both groups rightfully argue that this "violates separation of church and state."

There is no mandate that 'beliefs' be equally represented. Your entire argument is based on an imaginary, false, and fallacious premise.

Beliefs compete. Some win. Some lose. And in a contest between beliefs and rights, rights win. If you don't think that differing beliefs have winners and losers......then let the next election disabuse you of that misconception.

 

[emilynghiem]

View attachment 95419

Here Skylar
I drew you a diagram of the different ranges and realms of people's viewpoints.

Since govt and public institutions are supposed to include and protect people equally regardless of beliefs,
then people like you who believe marriage is a right on the level of other Constitutional rights are in one group.

How does recognizing marriage for same sex couples strip anyone who disagrees of any right?

Having a different 'belief' doesn't mean you can strip people of their rights, Emily. This is the part you've never understood; a belief alone has no authority. So if you have a belief and I have a belief, there's no mandate that any public institution represent them both equally.

You keep pretending that such an imaginary mandate exists. And it never has. Not in the law, our history, our constitution. Just your imagination.

People who disagree and believe otherwise, even rejecting one form of marriage or another, are in other groups.
And I believe in treating and including all such beliefs equally.

And your belief vs. someone else's rights has the same outcome: their rights win.

You having a 'belief' doesn't grant you any special power to strip anyone of any right.

So my goal is to work toward the OUTER SQUARE that accommodates all views even if they conflict with each other.

Same problem as always: there is no such mandate for the representation of all beliefs in any democracy. Beliefs compete. Compete with each other, compete with rights. And rights trump belief.

You've never understood how democracy works, how rights work. And keep awkwardly trying to elevate 'belief' alone to some sacrosanct status that must be represented and given authority.

Um, no. If you have a stupid belief, we're not doing that. Stupid according to who? Our laws, our people and our constitution.

Dear Skylar
It doesn't HAVE to "strip someone of their rights"
to be a violation of the principle behind separation of church and state.

How does gay marriage have a thing to do with the 'separation of church and state'?

Again, you can any belief you want. But it doesn't mean that your view must be represented anywhere. Let alone in public institutions, our law, or our constitution.

If you don't believe in gay marriage, don't have one. But denying a gay or lesbian couple the right to marry because *you* have a belief is ludicrous. As they have a right to marry. And your 'belief' doesn't have any authority over their rights.

However, if either group pushes for either "traditional marriage only" to be endorsed by the state against the beliefs of others that same sex couples should be included
or "same sex marriage" to be endorsed by the state against the beliefs of others that marriage is not for same sex couples,
then both groups rightfully argue that this "violates separation of church and state."

There is no mandate that 'beliefs' be equally represented. Your entire argument is based on an imaginary, false, and fallacious premise.

Beliefs compete. Some win. Some lose. And in a contest between beliefs and rights, rights win. If you don't think that differing beliefs have winners and losers......then let the next election disabuse you of that misconception.

Skylar
1. RE How does gay marriage have a thing to do with the 'separation of church and state'?

Because some people believe in gay marriage and others do not.
Then these beliefs should not be established by govt.

If you are going to treat all beliefs equally as you would Christianity and church/collective authority
that supports "faith based" policies and principles;
and ask that this authority NOT be imposed through govt on other people "of other faiths"

then to protect all beliefs equally
yes,
the beliefs about LGBT/homosexuality/gender identity etc.
should be treated equally
instead of making an exception for these beliefs
because they are secular in expression and not labeled by an organized denomination.

They are still faith-based beliefs, not proven by science,
and up to the choice of individuals "what to believe"

so the PRINCIPLE of "separation of church and state" or the
establishment clause barring either endorsement or prohibition by govt
should apply to beliefs equally, and not just to members of organized religions,
or that's a form of discrimination by affiliation or creed.

If political parties leaders and groups are pushing beliefs through govt,
they should be treated the SAME as when traditional religions or church groups
are pushing their agenda through govt that other people don't believe in,
demand free choice to believe otherwise, and argue that is outside the jursidiction of govt.

2. RE There is no mandate that 'beliefs' be equally represented

A. In order to be consistent with "equal PROTECTION of the laws"
then if govt is used to "represent" LGBT beliefs by NAMING
the beliefs in homosexuality, same sex marriages, transgender identity, as recognized and protected
then this isn't equal.

so if you don't believe in equal representation when it comes to beliefs,
that's even MORE reason to REMOVE ALL SUCH REFERENCES.

I WOULD AGREE WITH YOU!!!

Govt is being used to endorse and REPRESENT a set of beliefs - the LGBT beliefs "in favor" of homosexuality as natural
(and in some cases writing out penalties against people for rejecting these beliefs)
-- which is just as wrong as laws/ordinances REJECTING and banning same sex marriage,
transgender people from using the restroom of their identity, and other LGBT beliefs
that are equally someone's free choice.

So either REMOVE THOSE BIASED REFERENCES favoring or rejecting one belief over another
OR represent all other beliefs equally, and that's still treating them all equally.

B. In order to be consistent with not discriminating on the basis of creed
again, either include them all or remove all biased references to faith based beliefs that not all people consent to be in public policy

C. In order to be consistent with the First Amendment
against either establishing religion or prohibiting free exercise thereof,
again,
either remove the contested faith-based references
change the language in the laws to be NEUTRAL and void of contested biases
or have all the people affected by the laws agree to concessions
(whereby they agree to compromise in one area in exchange for the opposite group conceding in another)

So to answer your objection
in order to comply with
* the First Amendment on the govt neither establishing nor prohibiting faith based beliefs
* the Fourteenth Amendment on equal protection of the laws
* the Civil Rights extension of equal protection of the laws to public institutions
by not discriminating on the basis of creed

then IF one belief is represented then all beliefs should be equally represented
OTHERWISE remove the references or stick to neutral language everyone agrees is
equally inclusive and neither endorses nor excludes any one set of beliefs over others
(or agree to mutual concessions if that brings about a consensus on how to manage
faith based policies that involve govt)