Gay marriage is not a constitutional right

[Sneekin]

Since the current court rulings that are in effect and are binding rely upon the language and intent of the Constitution(you do know that the Bill of Rights are part of the Constitution- right? Saying the Constitution and the Bill of Rights is like saying you were relying upon the Old Testament- and the 10 Commandments. )

The Bill of Rights are part of the Constitution? When did that happen? That was not the intent. Why was the first draft of the Bill of Rights rejected from being inserted into the body of the articles of the Constitution that the respective rights applied?

Troll - The Bill of Rights is the collective name for the first ten amendments to the United States Constitution. This should have been taught to you by sixth grade if not sooner. Did you not even complete the sixth grade?

You seem to have forgotten to address this:

Why was the first draft of the Bill of Rights rejected from being inserted into the body of the articles of the Constitution that the respective rights applied? This would have made the Bill of Rights part of the Constitution and subject to the Article V amendment process. The idea of making the Bill of Rights part of the Constitution as were the Declaration of Rights in the Virginia constitution was summarily rejected.

Troll boy, wipe the drool off your chin, and answer questions. The bill of rights is inserted into the constitution. This isn't history class, we aren't answering the why it is or isn't, as you lack the courtesy and intelligence to answer those put to you. Then again, you don't even know what century this is.......maybe you should ask your primary school teachers. I realize it's hard for someone as mentally challenged as yourself, but try and stick to the topic, which isn't the bill or rights being incorporated into the constitution, it's as to whether or not gay marriage a constitutional right.

I'm shocked and amazed that you are so ignorant that you think we can vote away freedoms or rights for a group of people, whether by Race, Sexual Orientation, Religion, National Origin (Tenny, note that these are unique groups of people only, not meant to imply they have preferential treatment or classes). You see, fool, that would again violate the US Constitution. All men are created equal, not just old white men.

Read the 34 page ruling of Obergefell v. Hodges if you want that answered. The ruling clearly stated that the basic Constitutional notions of freedom mean“same-sex couples may exercise the right to marry.”.

Dear Sneekin and Tennyson
This business of courts deciding right to marriage is where we see a split in political creed and beliefs.
1. One is the Statist belief that judges can rule in cases of beliefs, including belief in right to marriage, right to life, right to health care, etc.
2. One is this is unconstitutional on 3-4 grounds: Amendment 1, 10, 14 and separation of powers that belongs to legislative authority

The Statist belief 1 can be seen as equal to the Constitutional belief 2 for people to choose freely and to exercise as long as it doesn't infringe on the equal rights of other beliefs; and as such, then neither side can impose on the other without violating amendment 1 both sides invoke to protect their beliefs.

Thus they either tie, and govt. cannot take sides without discrimination against the equal protection of the other belief. Or the parties agree how to resolve this consensually and not violate or coerce exclude or discriminate against each other's equal beliefs and protection of laws. But if govt gets used to impose one political belief on the other, we already know from experience and from our own beliefs, this is not constitutional but abuse of authority; either the nonstatist IS abusing govt to *establish* their political belief against statism, or the free choice person IS violating their OWN defense on grounds of freedom from someone else's religion. These are BOTH contradictory and thus they both fail, and both sides know this and complain. So clearly we aren't going to settle issues of belief or creed this way, and I suggest mediation, separation of policy, and consensus on alternatives to avoid the bullying coercion route.

Now, refute this statement and show me how this isn't fair to both sides .

Emily, simply not true. Discrimination cannot (or should not) be written into the Constitution. This is why we have the courts, and the laws. It makes no difference if you believe SSM or Interracial Marriage infringes on what you consider your equal rights - and the two don't violate the first amendment. The government most certainly can take sides - it always takes sides, in fact. Whichever side is IAW the US Constitution or subsequent amendments. The Constitution (and TItle X) address the creed issue as well. While you can't discriminate based on creed (we can't allow ANY Muslim to come to the US, we can't promote, we can't have them in positions of power), the government could step in when a piece of their religious creed violates another's rights (constitutional, legal, etc).

 

[Sneekin]

Dear Tennyson pure logic would tell us
that if states establish a religion or religious bias that
A. all their citizens agree to, nobody is going to contest it as religious imposition, so it will not be found
unconstitutional since nobody will complain or petition/sue for it to change
B. a number of their citizens DON'T believe in or agree with, then that WILL be contested as unconstitutional

(so it's the issue of CONSENT that makes it constitutional or unconstitutional)

If there isn't consent and there is a contested bias in the law due to clashing beliefs, this will cause
C. an argument whether it requires a 'consensus' of citizens to find it unconstitutional, 'majority rule' to determine if it is is or is not, or the FEDERAL GOVT to step in and decide if citizens are being deprived unconstitutionally

We will have the exact situation we have now with
1. people disagreeing about right to life, prochoice, and federal laws made by legislators or rulings by courts
2. similar arguments over the recognition of homosexual or transgender identity and marriage rights etc.

Tennyson we in fact DO have conflicts of religion going on with the govt and Constitution itself.
Some interpret and believe the history as govt founders DID establish an agreed process in creating the Constitution, where the conventions WERE presided over with prayer to God for wisdom to guide the process.

So this is in practice, an expression of the faith in the democratic process of establishing truth by "witnesses" in defense of one side or another, which is also reflected in the Bible, in Matthew 18:15-20 where trespasses are being addressed as a specific type of conflict, but this "due process of law" can apply to any grievance or issue.

If we BELIEVE in this process, and use Constitutional laws to express and enforce it, that is like a political religion because it involves govt processes.

I use these in GENERAL terms and contexts to mean PEOPLE (not just govt) redressing grievances.
So to me it is a spiritual process between people on a personal level first, then it extends to relationships between people and groups, and then the govt process reflects that collectively on a public or global scale.

I would say we DO have different denominations of Constitutionalism going on.

Emily,

The states had state sponsored religions into the eighteenth century. No religion was imposed on anyone. The advantage was receiving tax money from the state. All the states had different religions. There was no constitutional basis against what the states were doing. It is the same as the Fifteenth Amendment, the Nineteenth Amendment, and the reconstruction Congress' approving the state's anti-miscegenation laws. If the equal protection and due process clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment meant what activist courts have created that they meant, there would be no reason for the amendments because they could have just sued. They did not sue because the Fourteenth Amendment's equal protection and due process clauses were only applicable for judicial proceedings.

Syriusly, get a load of this - there's no need for the 14th amendment, because people could have just sued using the principals of the 14th amendment. Tenny must not realize that you only sue in judicial proceedings, as judicial proceedings are actions carried out in a court of law. I still want to know how one sues without having applicable law in place. Oh yes, that's why he's turning in his guns, since he can only have single shot revolvers and muskets, and cannons. His teachers are shaking their heads in embarrassment. Hint -all we have, according to you are 21st century activist court rulings - you aren't even in the right century. And according to you, we then use activist court rulings from the 18th century, 19th century, 20th century, (and as you ignorantly left out), 21st century. You do realize the SSM rulings were THIS century, Tenny?

I am trying to understand your post in the context of the law and the Constitution, but it defies both.

If you don't understand english, admit it. You've already demonstrated your ignorance of the law and the US Constitution. Figured out yet that the Bill of rights are the start of the US Constitution, or are you still in some kind of drug or alcohol stupor that prevents you from understanding?" Answer questions - and you'll get answers. Keep ignoring us, and you'll get nothing. I see you've failed to grasp the concept that judicial proceedings occur in courts, and that for someone to sue citing the 14th amendment, the 14th amendment must be in place. Thanks for proving ignorance is bliss. We can see you giggling inanely behind your keyboard and monitor. To dumb this down to your level - You cannot sue someone for establishing a federal religion if it was not already determined to violate the first amendment - that is to say, slow minded one, if there was no first amendment, you cannot sue. We are dazzled by your stupidity (as opposed to just ignorance of the constitution). Dropped on your head?

Tenny Shoe, I am trying to understand your post in the context of the law and the Constitution, but it defies both. There is nothing in this post that I can assign to any legitimate legal or constitutional concept.

Is it true that Life is like a box of chocolates? I'm sorry, but as I said, that's all I will right until you answer questions. The bill of rights? You mean the beginning of the US Constitution? What an idiot you are. How are you doing declaring that state religion of Catholicism? How about that federal religion of Catholicism? Answer some questions and I'll dumb it down even more. Wipe the spittle off the screen, and let it sink in that I'm responding to your post with your own answers. You've stated multiple times that we cannot have a Protestant religion. Fool. Hopefully this was addressed to me, but once again, trolls can't follow rules as laid out by usmessageboard.com, or requests by other posters to address your pathetic trolls to specific people.


To quote Syriusly, "The Bill of Rights are part of the Constitution.
Every amendment to the Constitution is part of the Constitution."

If you would learn to count higher than one, you could possibly understand that more than one person asks and/or addresses you.

 

[emilynghiem]

The Bill of Rights are part of the Constitution? When did that happen? That was not the intent. Why was the first draft of the Bill of Rights rejected from being inserted into the body of the articles of the Constitution that the respective rights applied?

Troll - The Bill of Rights is the collective name for the first ten amendments to the United States Constitution. This should have been taught to you by sixth grade if not sooner. Did you not even complete the sixth grade?

You seem to have forgotten to address this:

Why was the first draft of the Bill of Rights rejected from being inserted into the body of the articles of the Constitution that the respective rights applied? This would have made the Bill of Rights part of the Constitution and subject to the Article V amendment process. The idea of making the Bill of Rights part of the Constitution as were the Declaration of Rights in the Virginia constitution was summarily rejected.

Troll boy, wipe the drool off your chin, and answer questions. The bill of rights is inserted into the constitution. This isn't history class, we aren't answering the why it is or isn't, as you lack the courtesy and intelligence to answer those put to you. Then again, you don't even know what century this is.......maybe you should ask your primary school teachers. I realize it's hard for someone as mentally challenged as yourself, but try and stick to the topic, which isn't the bill or rights being incorporated into the constitution, it's as to whether or not gay marriage a constitutional right.

I'm shocked and amazed that you are so ignorant that you think we can vote away freedoms or rights for a group of people, whether by Race, Sexual Orientation, Religion, National Origin (Tenny, note that these are unique groups of people only, not meant to imply they have preferential treatment or classes). You see, fool, that would again violate the US Constitution. All men are created equal, not just old white men.

Read the 34 page ruling of Obergefell v. Hodges if you want that answered. The ruling clearly stated that the basic Constitutional notions of freedom mean“same-sex couples may exercise the right to marry.”.

Dear Sneekin and Tennyson
This business of courts deciding right to marriage is where we see a split in political creed and beliefs.
1. One is the Statist belief that judges can rule in cases of beliefs, including belief in right to marriage, right to life, right to health care, etc.
2. One is this is unconstitutional on 3-4 grounds: Amendment 1, 10, 14 and separation of powers that belongs to legislative authority

The Statist belief 1 can be seen as equal to the Constitutional belief 2 for people to choose freely and to exercise as long as it doesn't infringe on the equal rights of other beliefs; and as such, then neither side can impose on the other without violating amendment 1 both sides invoke to protect their beliefs.

Thus they either tie, and govt. cannot take sides without discrimination against the equal protection of the other belief. Or the parties agree how to resolve this consensually and not violate or coerce exclude or discriminate against each other's equal beliefs and protection of laws. But if govt gets used to impose one political belief on the other, we already know from experience and from our own beliefs, this is not constitutional but abuse of authority; either the nonstatist IS abusing govt to *establish* their political belief against statism, or the free choice person IS violating their OWN defense on grounds of freedom from someone else's religion. These are BOTH contradictory and thus they both fail, and both sides know this and complain. So clearly we aren't going to settle issues of belief or creed this way, and I suggest mediation, separation of policy, and consensus on alternatives to avoid the bullying coercion route.

Now, refute this statement and show me how this isn't fair to both sides .

Emily, simply not true. Discrimination cannot (or should not) be written into the Constitution. This is why we have the courts, and the laws. It makes no difference if you believe SSM or Interracial Marriage infringes on what you consider your equal rights - and the two don't violate the first amendment. The government most certainly can take sides - it always takes sides, in fact. Whichever side is IAW the US Constitution or subsequent amendments. The Constitution (and TItle X) address the creed issue as well. While you can't discriminate based on creed (we can't allow ANY Muslim to come to the US, we can't promote, we can't have them in positions of power), the government could step in when a piece of their religious creed violates another's rights (constitutional, legal, etc).

I don't disagree with you Sneekin but saying the same thing: that govt cannot be involved in discriminating by creed

the difference I am addressing which you do not seem to acknowledge
is that the solution to FIX the discrimination
cannot then impose ANOTHER creed that discriminates.

I am trying to prevent BOTH sides from discriminating against the other
and abusing govt to do so.

so I am asking how do we achieve that?

 

[Sneekin]

Troll - The Bill of Rights is the collective name for the first ten amendments to the United States Constitution. This should have been taught to you by sixth grade if not sooner. Did you not even complete the sixth grade?

You seem to have forgotten to address this:

Why was the first draft of the Bill of Rights rejected from being inserted into the body of the articles of the Constitution that the respective rights applied? This would have made the Bill of Rights part of the Constitution and subject to the Article V amendment process. The idea of making the Bill of Rights part of the Constitution as were the Declaration of Rights in the Virginia constitution was summarily rejected.

Troll boy, wipe the drool off your chin, and answer questions. The bill of rights is inserted into the constitution. This isn't history class, we aren't answering the why it is or isn't, as you lack the courtesy and intelligence to answer those put to you. Then again, you don't even know what century this is.......maybe you should ask your primary school teachers. I realize it's hard for someone as mentally challenged as yourself, but try and stick to the topic, which isn't the bill or rights being incorporated into the constitution, it's as to whether or not gay marriage a constitutional right.

I'm shocked and amazed that you are so ignorant that you think we can vote away freedoms or rights for a group of people, whether by Race, Sexual Orientation, Religion, National Origin (Tenny, note that these are unique groups of people only, not meant to imply they have preferential treatment or classes). You see, fool, that would again violate the US Constitution. All men are created equal, not just old white men.

Read the 34 page ruling of Obergefell v. Hodges if you want that answered. The ruling clearly stated that the basic Constitutional notions of freedom mean“same-sex couples may exercise the right to marry.”.

Dear Sneekin and Tennyson
This business of courts deciding right to marriage is where we see a split in political creed and beliefs.
1. One is the Statist belief that judges can rule in cases of beliefs, including belief in right to marriage, right to life, right to health care, etc.
2. One is this is unconstitutional on 3-4 grounds: Amendment 1, 10, 14 and separation of powers that belongs to legislative authority

The Statist belief 1 can be seen as equal to the Constitutional belief 2 for people to choose freely and to exercise as long as it doesn't infringe on the equal rights of other beliefs; and as such, then neither side can impose on the other without violating amendment 1 both sides invoke to protect their beliefs.

Thus they either tie, and govt. cannot take sides without discrimination against the equal protection of the other belief. Or the parties agree how to resolve this consensually and not violate or coerce exclude or discriminate against each other's equal beliefs and protection of laws. But if govt gets used to impose one political belief on the other, we already know from experience and from our own beliefs, this is not constitutional but abuse of authority; either the nonstatist IS abusing govt to *establish* their political belief against statism, or the free choice person IS violating their OWN defense on grounds of freedom from someone else's religion. These are BOTH contradictory and thus they both fail, and both sides know this and complain. So clearly we aren't going to settle issues of belief or creed this way, and I suggest mediation, separation of policy, and consensus on alternatives to avoid the bullying coercion route.

Now, refute this statement and show me how this isn't fair to both sides .

Emily, simply not true. Discrimination cannot (or should not) be written into the Constitution. This is why we have the courts, and the laws. It makes no difference if you believe SSM or Interracial Marriage infringes on what you consider your equal rights - and the two don't violate the first amendment. The government most certainly can take sides - it always takes sides, in fact. Whichever side is IAW the US Constitution or subsequent amendments. The Constitution (and TItle X) address the creed issue as well. While you can't discriminate based on creed (we can't allow ANY Muslim to come to the US, we can't promote, we can't have them in positions of power), the government could step in when a piece of their religious creed violates another's rights (constitutional, legal, etc).

I don't disagree with you Sneekin but saying the same thing: that govt cannot be involved in discriminating by creed

the difference I am addressing which you do not seem to acknowledge
is that the solution to FIX the discrimination
cannot then impose ANOTHER creed that discriminates.

I am trying to prevent BOTH sides from discriminating against the other
and abusing govt to do so.

so I am asking how do we achieve that?

And I'm saying, yes they can impose discrimination. We can no longer impose an eye for an eye (Capital Punishment) in many states, even though that goes against the creed of some. Some Christian religions prohibit interracial marriage. Loving directly violates their religious creed. Ditto SSM, where some religions allow SSM, some do not, yet it is legal - so it violates their religious creed as well. By allowing SSM/Interracial marriage, it violates the creed of another. Catholics don't allow remarriage (unless their first spouse died/marriage was annulled), most protestants allow divorce. Diametrically opposed. FIrst amendment allows us to be any religion (or none at all). We never impose creeds, that would be a violation of their constitutional rights. However, the laws may allow those not of your creed to do something (ie, interracial marriage/SSM); even though your creed disagrees. I'm still not sure why you think one side discriminates against another. Both sides disagree sometimes, it's what makes this country great (our choice). Government is not abused because your religion may disagree with SSM and mine may agree with it. Hope this helps.

 

[Tennyson]

The Bill of Rights are part of the Constitution? When did that happen? That was not the intent. Why was the first draft of the Bill of Rights rejected from being inserted into the body of the articles of the Constitution that the respective rights applied?

Troll - The Bill of Rights is the collective name for the first ten amendments to the United States Constitution. This should have been taught to you by sixth grade if not sooner. Did you not even complete the sixth grade?

You seem to have forgotten to address this:

Why was the first draft of the Bill of Rights rejected from being inserted into the body of the articles of the Constitution that the respective rights applied? This would have made the Bill of Rights part of the Constitution and subject to the Article V amendment process. The idea of making the Bill of Rights part of the Constitution as were the Declaration of Rights in the Virginia constitution was summarily rejected.

Troll boy, wipe the drool off your chin, and answer questions. The bill of rights is inserted into the constitution. This isn't history class, we aren't answering the why it is or isn't, as you lack the courtesy and intelligence to answer those put to you. Then again, you don't even know what century this is.......maybe you should ask your primary school teachers. I realize it's hard for someone as mentally challenged as yourself, but try and stick to the topic, which isn't the bill or rights being incorporated into the constitution, it's as to whether or not gay marriage a constitutional right.

I'm shocked and amazed that you are so ignorant that you think we can vote away freedoms or rights for a group of people, whether by Race, Sexual Orientation, Religion, National Origin (Tenny, note that these are unique groups of people only, not meant to imply they have preferential treatment or classes). You see, fool, that would again violate the US Constitution. All men are created equal, not just old white men.

Read the 34 page ruling of Obergefell v. Hodges if you want that answered. The ruling clearly stated that the basic Constitutional notions of freedom mean“same-sex couples may exercise the right to marry.”.

If the founders wanted to insert the Bill of Rights into the Constitution they probably would have written the Bill of Rights into certain articles by deleting parts of the article, section, or paragraph and inserting the amendment in their place.

The Bill of Rights are part of the Constitution.

Every amendment to the Constitution is part of the Constitution.

If the founders intended for the Bill of Rights to be part of the Constitution, they probably would have written the Bill of Rights into certain articles by deleting parts of the article, section, or paragraph and inserting the amendment in their place with words such as "added," "struck," or "inserted."

 

[Tennyson]

Troll - The Bill of Rights is the collective name for the first ten amendments to the United States Constitution. This should have been taught to you by sixth grade if not sooner. Did you not even complete the sixth grade?

You seem to have forgotten to address this:

Why was the first draft of the Bill of Rights rejected from being inserted into the body of the articles of the Constitution that the respective rights applied? This would have made the Bill of Rights part of the Constitution and subject to the Article V amendment process. The idea of making the Bill of Rights part of the Constitution as were the Declaration of Rights in the Virginia constitution was summarily rejected.

Troll boy, wipe the drool off your chin, and answer questions. The bill of rights is inserted into the constitution. This isn't history class, we aren't answering the why it is or isn't, as you lack the courtesy and intelligence to answer those put to you. Then again, you don't even know what century this is.......maybe you should ask your primary school teachers. I realize it's hard for someone as mentally challenged as yourself, but try and stick to the topic, which isn't the bill or rights being incorporated into the constitution, it's as to whether or not gay marriage a constitutional right.

I'm shocked and amazed that you are so ignorant that you think we can vote away freedoms or rights for a group of people, whether by Race, Sexual Orientation, Religion, National Origin (Tenny, note that these are unique groups of people only, not meant to imply they have preferential treatment or classes). You see, fool, that would again violate the US Constitution. All men are created equal, not just old white men.

Read the 34 page ruling of Obergefell v. Hodges if you want that answered. The ruling clearly stated that the basic Constitutional notions of freedom mean“same-sex couples may exercise the right to marry.”.

If the founders wanted to insert the Bill of Rights into the Constitution they probably would have written the Bill of Rights into certain articles by deleting parts of the article, section, or paragraph and inserting the amendment in their place.

The Bill of Rights are part of the Constitution.

Every amendment to the Constitution is part of the Constitution.

To all but Tennyson, apparently.

If the founders intended for the Bill of Rights to be part of the Constitution, they probably would have written the Bill of Rights into certain articles by deleting parts of the article, section, or paragraph and inserting the amendment in their place with words such as "added," "struck," or "inserted."

 

[Tennyson]

Emily,

The states had state sponsored religions into the eighteenth century. No religion was imposed on anyone. The advantage was receiving tax money from the state. All the states had different religions. There was no constitutional basis against what the states were doing. It is the same as the Fifteenth Amendment, the Nineteenth Amendment, and the reconstruction Congress' approving the state's anti-miscegenation laws. If the equal protection and due process clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment meant what activist courts have created that they meant, there would be no reason for the amendments because they could have just sued. They did not sue because the Fourteenth Amendment's equal protection and due process clauses were only applicable for judicial proceedings.

Syriusly, get a load of this - there's no need for the 14th amendment, because people could have just sued using the principals of the 14th amendment. Tenny must not realize that you only sue in judicial proceedings, as judicial proceedings are actions carried out in a court of law. I still want to know how one sues without having applicable law in place. Oh yes, that's why he's turning in his guns, since he can only have single shot revolvers and muskets, and cannons. His teachers are shaking their heads in embarrassment. Hint -all we have, according to you are 21st century activist court rulings - you aren't even in the right century. And according to you, we then use activist court rulings from the 18th century, 19th century, 20th century, (and as you ignorantly left out), 21st century. You do realize the SSM rulings were THIS century, Tenny?

I am trying to understand your post in the context of the law and the Constitution, but it defies both.

If you don't understand english, admit it. You've already demonstrated your ignorance of the law and the US Constitution. Figured out yet that the Bill of rights are the start of the US Constitution, or are you still in some kind of drug or alcohol stupor that prevents you from understanding?" Answer questions - and you'll get answers. Keep ignoring us, and you'll get nothing. I see you've failed to grasp the concept that judicial proceedings occur in courts, and that for someone to sue citing the 14th amendment, the 14th amendment must be in place. Thanks for proving ignorance is bliss. We can see you giggling inanely behind your keyboard and monitor. To dumb this down to your level - You cannot sue someone for establishing a federal religion if it was not already determined to violate the first amendment - that is to say, slow minded one, if there was no first amendment, you cannot sue. We are dazzled by your stupidity (as opposed to just ignorance of the constitution). Dropped on your head?

Tenny Shoe, I am trying to understand your post in the context of the law and the Constitution, but it defies both. There is nothing in this post that I can assign to any legitimate legal or constitutional concept.

Is it true that Life is like a box of chocolates? I'm sorry, but as I said, that's all I will right until you answer questions. The bill of rights? You mean the beginning of the US Constitution? What an idiot you are. How are you doing declaring that state religion of Catholicism? How about that federal religion of Catholicism? Answer some questions and I'll dumb it down even more. Wipe the spittle off the screen, and let it sink in that I'm responding to your post with your own answers. You've stated multiple times that we cannot have a Protestant religion. Fool. Hopefully this was addressed to me, but once again, trolls can't follow rules as laid out by usmessageboard.com, or requests by other posters to address your pathetic trolls to specific people.


To quote Syriusly, "The Bill of Rights are part of the Constitution.
Every amendment to the Constitution is part of the Constitution."

If you would learn to count higher than one, you could possibly understand that more than one person asks and/or addresses you.

If the founders intended for the Bill of Rights to be part of the Constitution, they probably would have written the Bill of Rights into certain articles by deleting parts of the article, section, or paragraph and inserting the amendment in their place with words such as "added," "struck," or "inserted."

 

[Sneekin]

If the founders intended for the Bill of Rights to be part of the Constitution, they probably would have written the Bill of Rights into certain articles by deleting parts of the article, section, or paragraph and inserting the amendment in their place with words such as "added," "struck," or "inserted."

Syriusly - do you hear an annoying buzzing sound? reminds me of a spoiled little child who doesn't get his way. He's repeated himself twice now, he must have learned copy/paste in his remedial keyboarding class! I see he still hasn't learned that to speak with someone, he needs to use their name. Perhaps if he paid more attention to his teachers, he would be able to retain.

 

[Faun]

Since the current court rulings that are in effect and are binding rely upon the language and intent of the Constitution(you do know that the Bill of Rights are part of the Constitution- right? Saying the Constitution and the Bill of Rights is like saying you were relying upon the Old Testament- and the 10 Commandments. )

The Bill of Rights are part of the Constitution? When did that happen? That was not the intent. Why was the first draft of the Bill of Rights rejected from being inserted into the body of the articles of the Constitution that the respective rights applied?

Troll - The Bill of Rights is the collective name for the first ten amendments to the United States Constitution. This should have been taught to you by sixth grade if not sooner. Did you not even complete the sixth grade?

You seem to have forgotten to address this:

Why was the first draft of the Bill of Rights rejected from being inserted into the body of the articles of the Constitution that the respective rights applied? This would have made the Bill of Rights part of the Constitution and subject to the Article V amendment process. The idea of making the Bill of Rights part of the Constitution as were the Declaration of Rights in the Virginia constitution was summarily rejected.

Troll boy, wipe the drool off your chin, and answer questions. The bill of rights is inserted into the constitution. This isn't history class, we aren't answering the why it is or isn't, as you lack the courtesy and intelligence to answer those put to you. Then again, you don't even know what century this is.......maybe you should ask your primary school teachers. I realize it's hard for someone as mentally challenged as yourself, but try and stick to the topic, which isn't the bill or rights being incorporated into the constitution, it's as to whether or not gay marriage a constitutional right.

I'm shocked and amazed that you are so ignorant that you think we can vote away freedoms or rights for a group of people, whether by Race, Sexual Orientation, Religion, National Origin (Tenny, note that these are unique groups of people only, not meant to imply they have preferential treatment or classes). You see, fool, that would again violate the US Constitution. All men are created equal, not just old white men.

Read the 34 page ruling of Obergefell v. Hodges if you want that answered. The ruling clearly stated that the basic Constitutional notions of freedom mean“same-sex couples may exercise the right to marry.”.

Dear Sneekin and Tennyson
This business of courts deciding right to marriage is where we see a split in political creed and beliefs.
1. One is the Statist belief that judges can rule in cases of beliefs, including belief in right to marriage, right to life, right to health care, etc.
2. One is this is unconstitutional on 3-4 grounds: Amendment 1, 10, 14 and separation of powers that belongs to legislative authority

The Statist belief 1 can be seen as equal to the Constitutional belief 2 for people to choose freely and to exercise as long as it doesn't infringe on the equal rights of other beliefs; and as such, then neither side can impose on the other without violating amendment 1 both sides invoke to protect their beliefs.

Thus they either tie, and govt. cannot take sides without discrimination against the equal protection of the other belief. Or the parties agree how to resolve this consensually and not violate or coerce exclude or discriminate against each other's equal beliefs and protection of laws. But if govt gets used to impose one political belief on the other, we already know from experience and from our own beliefs, this is not constitutional but abuse of authority; either the nonstatist IS abusing govt to *establish* their political belief against statism, or the free choice person IS violating their OWN defense on grounds of freedom from someone else's religion. These are BOTH contradictory and thus they both fail, and both sides know this and complain. So clearly we aren't going to settle issues of belief or creed this way, and I suggest mediation, separation of policy, and consensus on alternatives to avoid the bullying coercion route.

Now, refute this statement and show me how this isn't fair to both sides .

Say what?? You think people don't have a right to marry?

 

[Sneekin]

The Bill of Rights are part of the Constitution? When did that happen? That was not the intent. Why was the first draft of the Bill of Rights rejected from being inserted into the body of the articles of the Constitution that the respective rights applied?

Troll - The Bill of Rights is the collective name for the first ten amendments to the United States Constitution. This should have been taught to you by sixth grade if not sooner. Did you not even complete the sixth grade?

You seem to have forgotten to address this:

Why was the first draft of the Bill of Rights rejected from being inserted into the body of the articles of the Constitution that the respective rights applied? This would have made the Bill of Rights part of the Constitution and subject to the Article V amendment process. The idea of making the Bill of Rights part of the Constitution as were the Declaration of Rights in the Virginia constitution was summarily rejected.

Troll boy, wipe the drool off your chin, and answer questions. The bill of rights is inserted into the constitution. This isn't history class, we aren't answering the why it is or isn't, as you lack the courtesy and intelligence to answer those put to you. Then again, you don't even know what century this is.......maybe you should ask your primary school teachers. I realize it's hard for someone as mentally challenged as yourself, but try and stick to the topic, which isn't the bill or rights being incorporated into the constitution, it's as to whether or not gay marriage a constitutional right.

I'm shocked and amazed that you are so ignorant that you think we can vote away freedoms or rights for a group of people, whether by Race, Sexual Orientation, Religion, National Origin (Tenny, note that these are unique groups of people only, not meant to imply they have preferential treatment or classes). You see, fool, that would again violate the US Constitution. All men are created equal, not just old white men.

Read the 34 page ruling of Obergefell v. Hodges if you want that answered. The ruling clearly stated that the basic Constitutional notions of freedom mean“same-sex couples may exercise the right to marry.”.

Dear Sneekin and Tennyson
This business of courts deciding right to marriage is where we see a split in political creed and beliefs.
1. One is the Statist belief that judges can rule in cases of beliefs, including belief in right to marriage, right to life, right to health care, etc.
2. One is this is unconstitutional on 3-4 grounds: Amendment 1, 10, 14 and separation of powers that belongs to legislative authority

The Statist belief 1 can be seen as equal to the Constitutional belief 2 for people to choose freely and to exercise as long as it doesn't infringe on the equal rights of other beliefs; and as such, then neither side can impose on the other without violating amendment 1 both sides invoke to protect their beliefs.

Thus they either tie, and govt. cannot take sides without discrimination against the equal protection of the other belief. Or the parties agree how to resolve this consensually and not violate or coerce exclude or discriminate against each other's equal beliefs and protection of laws. But if govt gets used to impose one political belief on the other, we already know from experience and from our own beliefs, this is not constitutional but abuse of authority; either the nonstatist IS abusing govt to *establish* their political belief against statism, or the free choice person IS violating their OWN defense on grounds of freedom from someone else's religion. These are BOTH contradictory and thus they both fail, and both sides know this and complain. So clearly we aren't going to settle issues of belief or creed this way, and I suggest mediation, separation of policy, and consensus on alternatives to avoid the bullying coercion route.

Now, refute this statement and show me how this isn't fair to both sides .

Say what?? You think people don't have a right to marry?

Quite the opposite. People do have the right to marry, that is the point syriusly and I were trying to make. Emily thinks that you can't pass a law unless both sides are happy - because she claims that gay marriage violates someone else's religion. We've explained this to her before, and it didn't sink in. Obergefell didn't make SSM a requirement for any religion, it simply says the states cannot refuse to marry two people of the same sex. Windsor was a decision in which the United States Supreme Court held that restricting U.S. federal interpretation of "marriage" and "spouse" to apply only to opposite-sex unions, by Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), is unconstitutional under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment; Justice Kennedy wrote: "The federal statute is invalid, for no legitimate purpose overcomes the purpose and effect to disparage and to injure those whom the State, by its marriage laws, sought to protect in personhood and dignity." This gave Edith Windsor the federal estate tax exemption for surviving spouses.

Several people here are confused - they believe the government is usurping a religious right. Marriage, in both Windsor and Obergefell, addresses civil marriage. Several people claim SSM should be a civil union, and even civil ceremonies probably should be Civil Unions - which would violate the concept of separate but equal.

Emily - Government (SCOTUS) is not responsible for making people happy, nor are they imposing political beliefs. They are ruling solely on the point of law. You can be a devout evangelical that thinks SSM is perverse, damning, etc, and that everyone should be killed. As long as you don't kill (or threaten), it's your opinion. The government is not required to to make you happy in regards to religion, creed, etc. The first amendment grants us freedom of religion (ergo, also freedom from imposition of any religion upon us). You will never make the alt-right fundamentalist extremists happy unless SSM is overturned - which is a violation of the civil rights of all other americans. They do not choose who gets married. Just like the proposed FADA - it violates due process.

 

[emilynghiem]

Troll - The Bill of Rights is the collective name for the first ten amendments to the United States Constitution. This should have been taught to you by sixth grade if not sooner. Did you not even complete the sixth grade?

You seem to have forgotten to address this:

Why was the first draft of the Bill of Rights rejected from being inserted into the body of the articles of the Constitution that the respective rights applied? This would have made the Bill of Rights part of the Constitution and subject to the Article V amendment process. The idea of making the Bill of Rights part of the Constitution as were the Declaration of Rights in the Virginia constitution was summarily rejected.

Troll boy, wipe the drool off your chin, and answer questions. The bill of rights is inserted into the constitution. This isn't history class, we aren't answering the why it is or isn't, as you lack the courtesy and intelligence to answer those put to you. Then again, you don't even know what century this is.......maybe you should ask your primary school teachers. I realize it's hard for someone as mentally challenged as yourself, but try and stick to the topic, which isn't the bill or rights being incorporated into the constitution, it's as to whether or not gay marriage a constitutional right.

I'm shocked and amazed that you are so ignorant that you think we can vote away freedoms or rights for a group of people, whether by Race, Sexual Orientation, Religion, National Origin (Tenny, note that these are unique groups of people only, not meant to imply they have preferential treatment or classes). You see, fool, that would again violate the US Constitution. All men are created equal, not just old white men.

Read the 34 page ruling of Obergefell v. Hodges if you want that answered. The ruling clearly stated that the basic Constitutional notions of freedom mean“same-sex couples may exercise the right to marry.”.

Dear Sneekin and Tennyson
This business of courts deciding right to marriage is where we see a split in political creed and beliefs.
1. One is the Statist belief that judges can rule in cases of beliefs, including belief in right to marriage, right to life, right to health care, etc.
2. One is this is unconstitutional on 3-4 grounds: Amendment 1, 10, 14 and separation of powers that belongs to legislative authority

The Statist belief 1 can be seen as equal to the Constitutional belief 2 for people to choose freely and to exercise as long as it doesn't infringe on the equal rights of other beliefs; and as such, then neither side can impose on the other without violating amendment 1 both sides invoke to protect their beliefs.

Thus they either tie, and govt. cannot take sides without discrimination against the equal protection of the other belief. Or the parties agree how to resolve this consensually and not violate or coerce exclude or discriminate against each other's equal beliefs and protection of laws. But if govt gets used to impose one political belief on the other, we already know from experience and from our own beliefs, this is not constitutional but abuse of authority; either the nonstatist IS abusing govt to *establish* their political belief against statism, or the free choice person IS violating their OWN defense on grounds of freedom from someone else's religion. These are BOTH contradictory and thus they both fail, and both sides know this and complain. So clearly we aren't going to settle issues of belief or creed this way, and I suggest mediation, separation of policy, and consensus on alternatives to avoid the bullying coercion route.

Now, refute this statement and show me how this isn't fair to both sides .

Say what?? You think people don't have a right to marry?

Quite the opposite. People do have the right to marry, that is the point syriusly and I were trying to make. Emily thinks that you can't pass a law unless both sides are happy - because she claims that gay marriage violates someone else's religion. We've explained this to her before, and it didn't sink in. Obergefell didn't make SSM a requirement for any religion, it simply says the states cannot refuse to marry two people of the same sex. Windsor was a decision in which the United States Supreme Court held that restricting U.S. federal interpretation of "marriage" and "spouse" to apply only to opposite-sex unions, by Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), is unconstitutional under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment; Justice Kennedy wrote: "The federal statute is invalid, for no legitimate purpose overcomes the purpose and effect to disparage and to injure those whom the State, by its marriage laws, sought to protect in personhood and dignity." This gave Edith Windsor the federal estate tax exemption for surviving spouses.

Several people here are confused - they believe the government is usurping a religious right. Marriage, in both Windsor and Obergefell, addresses civil marriage. Several people claim SSM should be a civil union, and even civil ceremonies probably should be Civil Unions - which would violate the concept of separate but equal.

Emily - Government (SCOTUS) is not responsible for making people happy, nor are they imposing political beliefs. They are ruling solely on the point of law. You can be a devout evangelical that thinks SSM is perverse, damning, etc, and that everyone should be killed. As long as you don't kill (or threaten), it's your opinion. The government is not required to to make you happy in regards to religion, creed, etc. The first amendment grants us freedom of religion (ergo, also freedom from imposition of any religion upon us). You will never make the alt-right fundamentalist extremists happy unless SSM is overturned - which is a violation of the civil rights of all other americans. They do not choose who gets married. Just like the proposed FADA - it violates due process.

Dear Sneekin The point is about BELIEFS. The government is not in the business of deciding policy on faith based Beliefs or forcing people to change or comprise their beliefs. They may ask people to leave their beliefs out instead of pushing then through govt. So if Christians have to reduce prayer to something secular and neutral why not ask LGBT to do the same.

As for happiness, that follows from not violating people's equal religious freedom and protection from discrimination. That would take care of itself as a result. When people restore their faith in relations with govt and in due process and consensus, this brings peace as a result.

The issue is not pushing biased faith based creeds through govt.

It not only makes people "unhappy" but it violates natural laws and human nature to coerce ANYONE to change their beliefs because another group forced it through govt. That violation and abuse is contradictory to Constitutional limits and protections. The unhappiness caused is a natural expression of dissent that is otherwise denied if this isn't resolved inclusive lyrics of all people interests and beliefs

 

[Faun]

You seem to have forgotten to address this:

Why was the first draft of the Bill of Rights rejected from being inserted into the body of the articles of the Constitution that the respective rights applied? This would have made the Bill of Rights part of the Constitution and subject to the Article V amendment process. The idea of making the Bill of Rights part of the Constitution as were the Declaration of Rights in the Virginia constitution was summarily rejected.

Troll boy, wipe the drool off your chin, and answer questions. The bill of rights is inserted into the constitution. This isn't history class, we aren't answering the why it is or isn't, as you lack the courtesy and intelligence to answer those put to you. Then again, you don't even know what century this is.......maybe you should ask your primary school teachers. I realize it's hard for someone as mentally challenged as yourself, but try and stick to the topic, which isn't the bill or rights being incorporated into the constitution, it's as to whether or not gay marriage a constitutional right.

I'm shocked and amazed that you are so ignorant that you think we can vote away freedoms or rights for a group of people, whether by Race, Sexual Orientation, Religion, National Origin (Tenny, note that these are unique groups of people only, not meant to imply they have preferential treatment or classes). You see, fool, that would again violate the US Constitution. All men are created equal, not just old white men.

Read the 34 page ruling of Obergefell v. Hodges if you want that answered. The ruling clearly stated that the basic Constitutional notions of freedom mean“same-sex couples may exercise the right to marry.”.

Dear Sneekin and Tennyson
This business of courts deciding right to marriage is where we see a split in political creed and beliefs.
1. One is the Statist belief that judges can rule in cases of beliefs, including belief in right to marriage, right to life, right to health care, etc.
2. One is this is unconstitutional on 3-4 grounds: Amendment 1, 10, 14 and separation of powers that belongs to legislative authority

The Statist belief 1 can be seen as equal to the Constitutional belief 2 for people to choose freely and to exercise as long as it doesn't infringe on the equal rights of other beliefs; and as such, then neither side can impose on the other without violating amendment 1 both sides invoke to protect their beliefs.

Thus they either tie, and govt. cannot take sides without discrimination against the equal protection of the other belief. Or the parties agree how to resolve this consensually and not violate or coerce exclude or discriminate against each other's equal beliefs and protection of laws. But if govt gets used to impose one political belief on the other, we already know from experience and from our own beliefs, this is not constitutional but abuse of authority; either the nonstatist IS abusing govt to *establish* their political belief against statism, or the free choice person IS violating their OWN defense on grounds of freedom from someone else's religion. These are BOTH contradictory and thus they both fail, and both sides know this and complain. So clearly we aren't going to settle issues of belief or creed this way, and I suggest mediation, separation of policy, and consensus on alternatives to avoid the bullying coercion route.

Now, refute this statement and show me how this isn't fair to both sides .

Say what?? You think people don't have a right to marry?

Quite the opposite. People do have the right to marry, that is the point syriusly and I were trying to make. Emily thinks that you can't pass a law unless both sides are happy - because she claims that gay marriage violates someone else's religion. We've explained this to her before, and it didn't sink in. Obergefell didn't make SSM a requirement for any religion, it simply says the states cannot refuse to marry two people of the same sex. Windsor was a decision in which the United States Supreme Court held that restricting U.S. federal interpretation of "marriage" and "spouse" to apply only to opposite-sex unions, by Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), is unconstitutional under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment; Justice Kennedy wrote: "The federal statute is invalid, for no legitimate purpose overcomes the purpose and effect to disparage and to injure those whom the State, by its marriage laws, sought to protect in personhood and dignity." This gave Edith Windsor the federal estate tax exemption for surviving spouses.

Several people here are confused - they believe the government is usurping a religious right. Marriage, in both Windsor and Obergefell, addresses civil marriage. Several people claim SSM should be a civil union, and even civil ceremonies probably should be Civil Unions - which would violate the concept of separate but equal.

Emily - Government (SCOTUS) is not responsible for making people happy, nor are they imposing political beliefs. They are ruling solely on the point of law. You can be a devout evangelical that thinks SSM is perverse, damning, etc, and that everyone should be killed. As long as you don't kill (or threaten), it's your opinion. The government is not required to to make you happy in regards to religion, creed, etc. The first amendment grants us freedom of religion (ergo, also freedom from imposition of any religion upon us). You will never make the alt-right fundamentalist extremists happy unless SSM is overturned - which is a violation of the civil rights of all other americans. They do not choose who gets married. Just like the proposed FADA - it violates due process.

Dear Sneekin The point is about BELIEFS. The government is not in the business of deciding policy on faith based Beliefs or forcing people to change or comprise their beliefs. They may ask people to leave their beliefs out instead of pushing then through govt. So if Christians have to reduce prayer to something secular and neutral why not ask LGBT to do the same.

As for happiness, that follows from not violating people's equal religious freedom and protection from discrimination. That would take care of itself as a result. When people restore their faith in relations with govt and in due process and consensus, this brings peace as a result.

The issue is not pushing biased faith based creeds through govt.

It not only makes people "unhappy" but it violates natural laws and human nature to coerce ANYONE to change their beliefs because another group forced it through govt. That violation and abuse is contradictory to Constitutional limits and protections. The unhappiness caused is a natural expression of dissent that is otherwise denied if this isn't resolved inclusive lyrics of all people interests and beliefs

No one is forced to change their beliefs over gay marriage. No one is being forced to marry a gay person against their will and no one is being forced to accept other gay folks who wish to marry each other.

 

[emilynghiem]

Troll boy, wipe the drool off your chin, and answer questions. The bill of rights is inserted into the constitution. This isn't history class, we aren't answering the why it is or isn't, as you lack the courtesy and intelligence to answer those put to you. Then again, you don't even know what century this is.......maybe you should ask your primary school teachers. I realize it's hard for someone as mentally challenged as yourself, but try and stick to the topic, which isn't the bill or rights being incorporated into the constitution, it's as to whether or not gay marriage a constitutional right.

I'm shocked and amazed that you are so ignorant that you think we can vote away freedoms or rights for a group of people, whether by Race, Sexual Orientation, Religion, National Origin (Tenny, note that these are unique groups of people only, not meant to imply they have preferential treatment or classes). You see, fool, that would again violate the US Constitution. All men are created equal, not just old white men.

Read the 34 page ruling of Obergefell v. Hodges if you want that answered. The ruling clearly stated that the basic Constitutional notions of freedom mean“same-sex couples may exercise the right to marry.”.

Dear Sneekin and Tennyson
This business of courts deciding right to marriage is where we see a split in political creed and beliefs.
1. One is the Statist belief that judges can rule in cases of beliefs, including belief in right to marriage, right to life, right to health care, etc.
2. One is this is unconstitutional on 3-4 grounds: Amendment 1, 10, 14 and separation of powers that belongs to legislative authority

The Statist belief 1 can be seen as equal to the Constitutional belief 2 for people to choose freely and to exercise as long as it doesn't infringe on the equal rights of other beliefs; and as such, then neither side can impose on the other without violating amendment 1 both sides invoke to protect their beliefs.

Thus they either tie, and govt. cannot take sides without discrimination against the equal protection of the other belief. Or the parties agree how to resolve this consensually and not violate or coerce exclude or discriminate against each other's equal beliefs and protection of laws. But if govt gets used to impose one political belief on the other, we already know from experience and from our own beliefs, this is not constitutional but abuse of authority; either the nonstatist IS abusing govt to *establish* their political belief against statism, or the free choice person IS violating their OWN defense on grounds of freedom from someone else's religion. These are BOTH contradictory and thus they both fail, and both sides know this and complain. So clearly we aren't going to settle issues of belief or creed this way, and I suggest mediation, separation of policy, and consensus on alternatives to avoid the bullying coercion route.

Now, refute this statement and show me how this isn't fair to both sides .

Say what?? You think people don't have a right to marry?

Quite the opposite. People do have the right to marry, that is the point syriusly and I were trying to make. Emily thinks that you can't pass a law unless both sides are happy - because she claims that gay marriage violates someone else's religion. We've explained this to her before, and it didn't sink in. Obergefell didn't make SSM a requirement for any religion, it simply says the states cannot refuse to marry two people of the same sex. Windsor was a decision in which the United States Supreme Court held that restricting U.S. federal interpretation of "marriage" and "spouse" to apply only to opposite-sex unions, by Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), is unconstitutional under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment; Justice Kennedy wrote: "The federal statute is invalid, for no legitimate purpose overcomes the purpose and effect to disparage and to injure those whom the State, by its marriage laws, sought to protect in personhood and dignity." This gave Edith Windsor the federal estate tax exemption for surviving spouses.

Several people here are confused - they believe the government is usurping a religious right. Marriage, in both Windsor and Obergefell, addresses civil marriage. Several people claim SSM should be a civil union, and even civil ceremonies probably should be Civil Unions - which would violate the concept of separate but equal.

Emily - Government (SCOTUS) is not responsible for making people happy, nor are they imposing political beliefs. They are ruling solely on the point of law. You can be a devout evangelical that thinks SSM is perverse, damning, etc, and that everyone should be killed. As long as you don't kill (or threaten), it's your opinion. The government is not required to to make you happy in regards to religion, creed, etc. The first amendment grants us freedom of religion (ergo, also freedom from imposition of any religion upon us). You will never make the alt-right fundamentalist extremists happy unless SSM is overturned - which is a violation of the civil rights of all other americans. They do not choose who gets married. Just like the proposed FADA - it violates due process.

Dear Sneekin The point is about BELIEFS. The government is not in the business of deciding policy on faith based Beliefs or forcing people to change or comprise their beliefs. They may ask people to leave their beliefs out instead of pushing then through govt. So if Christians have to reduce prayer to something secular and neutral why not ask LGBT to do the same.

As for happiness, that follows from not violating people's equal religious freedom and protection from discrimination. That would take care of itself as a result. When people restore their faith in relations with govt and in due process and consensus, this brings peace as a result.

The issue is not pushing biased faith based creeds through govt.

It not only makes people "unhappy" but it violates natural laws and human nature to coerce ANYONE to change their beliefs because another group forced it through govt. That violation and abuse is contradictory to Constitutional limits and protections. The unhappiness caused is a natural expression of dissent that is otherwise denied if this isn't resolved inclusive lyrics of all people interests and beliefs

No one is forced to change their beliefs over gay marriage. No one is being forced to marry a gay person against their will and no one is being forced to accept other gay folks who wish to marry each other.

Dear Faun
people who believe the federal govt *cannot* pass biased Faith based policies without violating the Constitution are having our beliefs violated. Same with ACA. Neither you nor the people who actually passed these take responsibility for violating Constitutional beliefs of people like me.

Thanks to that, now I understand why right to life people feel violated by laws or rulings interpreted as making abortion legal. I believe in decriminaluzing it, I believe in not banning it.

But since people do not believe in these things religiously, it is an unconstitutional violation to abuse govt to incorporate such faith based policies and practices into govt itself.

Marriage beliefs should remain legal to practice freely but nothing religiously biased should be endorsed by govt against the beliefs of others or it violates constitutional equal freedoms and protections.

Faun you don't have to be forced to participate or change atheist beliefs to SUE to Remove a Cross from a public bldg.

The Principle bring violated is called the establishment clause in the first amendment. It does not require forcing anyone, because just the govt Endorsing and Incorporating the faith based reference is grounds for lawsuit to remove it!

Do you understand that the same first amendment arguments used by atheists to remove crosses from public display can be applied here to answer your supposition?

Can you explain how a cross can be removed from public school property by a religious freedom organization suing from across the country that doesn't even see the display they are suing to remove. How is that forcing the to change their beliefs?

If it's just the Principle, that govt not endorsed a faith based belief, why aren't LGBT beliefs subject to equal treatment?

Are your LGBT beliefs so important and special they should be endorsed by govt in violation of the establishment clause, while Christians don't get that same inclusion and tolerance you are demanding by law for your beliefs?

If Crosses get removed off public buildings that aren't forcing anyone, but just one atheist or one group sued because they Don't Share those beliefs, why can't Christians sue to remove references to gay marriage they don't believe in just like the atheists argued don't belong in govt.

 

[emilynghiem]

Troll boy, wipe the drool off your chin, and answer questions. The bill of rights is inserted into the constitution. This isn't history class, we aren't answering the why it is or isn't, as you lack the courtesy and intelligence to answer those put to you. Then again, you don't even know what century this is.......maybe you should ask your primary school teachers. I realize it's hard for someone as mentally challenged as yourself, but try and stick to the topic, which isn't the bill or rights being incorporated into the constitution, it's as to whether or not gay marriage a constitutional right.

I'm shocked and amazed that you are so ignorant that you think we can vote away freedoms or rights for a group of people, whether by Race, Sexual Orientation, Religion, National Origin (Tenny, note that these are unique groups of people only, not meant to imply they have preferential treatment or classes). You see, fool, that would again violate the US Constitution. All men are created equal, not just old white men.

Read the 34 page ruling of Obergefell v. Hodges if you want that answered. The ruling clearly stated that the basic Constitutional notions of freedom mean“same-sex couples may exercise the right to marry.”.

Dear Sneekin and Tennyson
This business of courts deciding right to marriage is where we see a split in political creed and beliefs.
1. One is the Statist belief that judges can rule in cases of beliefs, including belief in right to marriage, right to life, right to health care, etc.
2. One is this is unconstitutional on 3-4 grounds: Amendment 1, 10, 14 and separation of powers that belongs to legislative authority

The Statist belief 1 can be seen as equal to the Constitutional belief 2 for people to choose freely and to exercise as long as it doesn't infringe on the equal rights of other beliefs; and as such, then neither side can impose on the other without violating amendment 1 both sides invoke to protect their beliefs.

Thus they either tie, and govt. cannot take sides without discrimination against the equal protection of the other belief. Or the parties agree how to resolve this consensually and not violate or coerce exclude or discriminate against each other's equal beliefs and protection of laws. But if govt gets used to impose one political belief on the other, we already know from experience and from our own beliefs, this is not constitutional but abuse of authority; either the nonstatist IS abusing govt to *establish* their political belief against statism, or the free choice person IS violating their OWN defense on grounds of freedom from someone else's religion. These are BOTH contradictory and thus they both fail, and both sides know this and complain. So clearly we aren't going to settle issues of belief or creed this way, and I suggest mediation, separation of policy, and consensus on alternatives to avoid the bullying coercion route.

Now, refute this statement and show me how this isn't fair to both sides .

Say what?? You think people don't have a right to marry?

Quite the opposite. People do have the right to marry, that is the point syriusly and I were trying to make. Emily thinks that you can't pass a law unless both sides are happy - because she claims that gay marriage violates someone else's religion. We've explained this to her before, and it didn't sink in. Obergefell didn't make SSM a requirement for any religion, it simply says the states cannot refuse to marry two people of the same sex. Windsor was a decision in which the United States Supreme Court held that restricting U.S. federal interpretation of "marriage" and "spouse" to apply only to opposite-sex unions, by Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), is unconstitutional under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment; Justice Kennedy wrote: "The federal statute is invalid, for no legitimate purpose overcomes the purpose and effect to disparage and to injure those whom the State, by its marriage laws, sought to protect in personhood and dignity." This gave Edith Windsor the federal estate tax exemption for surviving spouses.

Several people here are confused - they believe the government is usurping a religious right. Marriage, in both Windsor and Obergefell, addresses civil marriage. Several people claim SSM should be a civil union, and even civil ceremonies probably should be Civil Unions - which would violate the concept of separate but equal.

Emily - Government (SCOTUS) is not responsible for making people happy, nor are they imposing political beliefs. They are ruling solely on the point of law. You can be a devout evangelical that thinks SSM is perverse, damning, etc, and that everyone should be killed. As long as you don't kill (or threaten), it's your opinion. The government is not required to to make you happy in regards to religion, creed, etc. The first amendment grants us freedom of religion (ergo, also freedom from imposition of any religion upon us). You will never make the alt-right fundamentalist extremists happy unless SSM is overturned - which is a violation of the civil rights of all other americans. They do not choose who gets married. Just like the proposed FADA - it violates due process.

Dear Sneekin The point is about BELIEFS. The government is not in the business of deciding policy on faith based Beliefs or forcing people to change or comprise their beliefs. They may ask people to leave their beliefs out instead of pushing then through govt. So if Christians have to reduce prayer to something secular and neutral why not ask LGBT to do the same.

As for happiness, that follows from not violating people's equal religious freedom and protection from discrimination. That would take care of itself as a result. When people restore their faith in relations with govt and in due process and consensus, this brings peace as a result.

The issue is not pushing biased faith based creeds through govt.

It not only makes people "unhappy" but it violates natural laws and human nature to coerce ANYONE to change their beliefs because another group forced it through govt. That violation and abuse is contradictory to Constitutional limits and protections. The unhappiness caused is a natural expression of dissent that is otherwise denied if this isn't resolved inclusive lyrics of all people interests and beliefs

No one is forced to change their beliefs over gay marriage. No one is being forced to marry a gay person against their will and no one is being forced to accept other gay folks who wish to marry each other.

Faun Over half the nation is being forced to deny our beliefs in states rights. Not just with this insistence with imposing YOUR belief that the judiciary can create a faith based belief in right to marriage, but also we have put up with unconstitutional mandates violating our beliefs that federal government has no authority to force us to buy insurance.

I have said repeatedly that I agree the courts strike down marriage bans as unconstitutional but that's NOT the same as attempting to legislate laws or create rights through the judiciary.

That's where it goes Too Far.

So abusing fed govt this way violates Constitutional beliefs of others like me, not represented or protected equally but excluded whenever the govt over steps and pushes laws or rulings we don't believe in as Constituonalists.

Sorry that you don't count our beliefs as grounds for contesting laws that are biased by faith based beliefs:
The right to marriage which is faith based, the right to health care which is faith based, and the right to make laws through the judiciary that violate beliefs of others because you are biased against states rights.

If you keep ignoring this conflict, you remind me of Christians who believe in pushing their beliefs through govt and don't count opposing views as valid.
Keep doing what you are doing, and you open the door for Christians to do the same -- abusing govt to endorse faith based beliefs regardless of anyone else's beliefs. You are like them!

 

[Faun]

Dear Sneekin and Tennyson
This business of courts deciding right to marriage is where we see a split in political creed and beliefs.
1. One is the Statist belief that judges can rule in cases of beliefs, including belief in right to marriage, right to life, right to health care, etc.
2. One is this is unconstitutional on 3-4 grounds: Amendment 1, 10, 14 and separation of powers that belongs to legislative authority

The Statist belief 1 can be seen as equal to the Constitutional belief 2 for people to choose freely and to exercise as long as it doesn't infringe on the equal rights of other beliefs; and as such, then neither side can impose on the other without violating amendment 1 both sides invoke to protect their beliefs.

Thus they either tie, and govt. cannot take sides without discrimination against the equal protection of the other belief. Or the parties agree how to resolve this consensually and not violate or coerce exclude or discriminate against each other's equal beliefs and protection of laws. But if govt gets used to impose one political belief on the other, we already know from experience and from our own beliefs, this is not constitutional but abuse of authority; either the nonstatist IS abusing govt to *establish* their political belief against statism, or the free choice person IS violating their OWN defense on grounds of freedom from someone else's religion. These are BOTH contradictory and thus they both fail, and both sides know this and complain. So clearly we aren't going to settle issues of belief or creed this way, and I suggest mediation, separation of policy, and consensus on alternatives to avoid the bullying coercion route.

Now, refute this statement and show me how this isn't fair to both sides .

Say what?? You think people don't have a right to marry?

Quite the opposite. People do have the right to marry, that is the point syriusly and I were trying to make. Emily thinks that you can't pass a law unless both sides are happy - because she claims that gay marriage violates someone else's religion. We've explained this to her before, and it didn't sink in. Obergefell didn't make SSM a requirement for any religion, it simply says the states cannot refuse to marry two people of the same sex. Windsor was a decision in which the United States Supreme Court held that restricting U.S. federal interpretation of "marriage" and "spouse" to apply only to opposite-sex unions, by Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), is unconstitutional under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment; Justice Kennedy wrote: "The federal statute is invalid, for no legitimate purpose overcomes the purpose and effect to disparage and to injure those whom the State, by its marriage laws, sought to protect in personhood and dignity." This gave Edith Windsor the federal estate tax exemption for surviving spouses.

Several people here are confused - they believe the government is usurping a religious right. Marriage, in both Windsor and Obergefell, addresses civil marriage. Several people claim SSM should be a civil union, and even civil ceremonies probably should be Civil Unions - which would violate the concept of separate but equal.

Emily - Government (SCOTUS) is not responsible for making people happy, nor are they imposing political beliefs. They are ruling solely on the point of law. You can be a devout evangelical that thinks SSM is perverse, damning, etc, and that everyone should be killed. As long as you don't kill (or threaten), it's your opinion. The government is not required to to make you happy in regards to religion, creed, etc. The first amendment grants us freedom of religion (ergo, also freedom from imposition of any religion upon us). You will never make the alt-right fundamentalist extremists happy unless SSM is overturned - which is a violation of the civil rights of all other americans. They do not choose who gets married. Just like the proposed FADA - it violates due process.

Dear Sneekin The point is about BELIEFS. The government is not in the business of deciding policy on faith based Beliefs or forcing people to change or comprise their beliefs. They may ask people to leave their beliefs out instead of pushing then through govt. So if Christians have to reduce prayer to something secular and neutral why not ask LGBT to do the same.

As for happiness, that follows from not violating people's equal religious freedom and protection from discrimination. That would take care of itself as a result. When people restore their faith in relations with govt and in due process and consensus, this brings peace as a result.

The issue is not pushing biased faith based creeds through govt.

It not only makes people "unhappy" but it violates natural laws and human nature to coerce ANYONE to change their beliefs because another group forced it through govt. That violation and abuse is contradictory to Constitutional limits and protections. The unhappiness caused is a natural expression of dissent that is otherwise denied if this isn't resolved inclusive lyrics of all people interests and beliefs

No one is forced to change their beliefs over gay marriage. No one is being forced to marry a gay person against their will and no one is being forced to accept other gay folks who wish to marry each other.

Dear Faun
people who believe the federal govt *cannot* pass biased Faith based policies without violating the Constitution are having our beliefs violated. Same with ACA. Neither you nor the people who actually passed these take responsibility for violating Constitutional beliefs of people like me.

Thanks to that, now I understand why right to life people feel violated by laws or rulings interpreted as making abortion legal. I believe in decriminaluzing it, I believe in not banning it.

But since people do not believe in these things religiously, it is an unconstitutional violation to abuse govt to incorporate such faith based policies and practices into govt itself.

Marriage beliefs should remain legal to practice freely but nothing religiously biased should be endorsed by govt against the beliefs of others or it violates constitutional equal freedoms and protections.

Faun you don't have to be forced to participate or change atheist beliefs to SUE to Remove a Cross from a public bldg.

The Principle bring violated is called the establishment clause in the first amendment. It does not require forcing anyone, because just the govt Endorsing and Incorporating the faith based reference is grounds for lawsuit to remove it!

Do you understand that the same first amendment arguments used by atheists to remove crosses from public display can be applied here to answer your supposition?

Can you explain how a cross can be removed from public school property by a religious freedom organization suing from across the country that doesn't even see the display they are suing to remove. How is that forcing the to change their beliefs?

If it's just the Principle, that govt not endorsed a faith based belief, why aren't LGBT beliefs subject to equal treatment?

Are your LGBT beliefs so important and special they should be endorsed by govt in violation of the establishment clause, while Christians don't get that same inclusion and tolerance you are demanding by law for your beliefs?

If Crosses get removed off public buildings that aren't forcing anyone, but just one atheist or one group sued because they Don't Share those beliefs, why can't Christians sue to remove references to gay marriage they don't believe in just like the atheists argued don't belong in govt.

That entire diatribe is misguided as same-sex marriage laws have nothing to do with religion and everything to do with equal protection under the law. If straight people have the liberty and right to marry the person they love and want to be legally married to, so can gay folks. We don't allow religious beliefs to deny people rights because religious people are offended.

 

[emilynghiem]

Say what?? You think people don't have a right to marry?

Quite the opposite. People do have the right to marry, that is the point syriusly and I were trying to make. Emily thinks that you can't pass a law unless both sides are happy - because she claims that gay marriage violates someone else's religion. We've explained this to her before, and it didn't sink in. Obergefell didn't make SSM a requirement for any religion, it simply says the states cannot refuse to marry two people of the same sex. Windsor was a decision in which the United States Supreme Court held that restricting U.S. federal interpretation of "marriage" and "spouse" to apply only to opposite-sex unions, by Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), is unconstitutional under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment; Justice Kennedy wrote: "The federal statute is invalid, for no legitimate purpose overcomes the purpose and effect to disparage and to injure those whom the State, by its marriage laws, sought to protect in personhood and dignity." This gave Edith Windsor the federal estate tax exemption for surviving spouses.

Several people here are confused - they believe the government is usurping a religious right. Marriage, in both Windsor and Obergefell, addresses civil marriage. Several people claim SSM should be a civil union, and even civil ceremonies probably should be Civil Unions - which would violate the concept of separate but equal.

Emily - Government (SCOTUS) is not responsible for making people happy, nor are they imposing political beliefs. They are ruling solely on the point of law. You can be a devout evangelical that thinks SSM is perverse, damning, etc, and that everyone should be killed. As long as you don't kill (or threaten), it's your opinion. The government is not required to to make you happy in regards to religion, creed, etc. The first amendment grants us freedom of religion (ergo, also freedom from imposition of any religion upon us). You will never make the alt-right fundamentalist extremists happy unless SSM is overturned - which is a violation of the civil rights of all other americans. They do not choose who gets married. Just like the proposed FADA - it violates due process.

Dear Sneekin The point is about BELIEFS. The government is not in the business of deciding policy on faith based Beliefs or forcing people to change or comprise their beliefs. They may ask people to leave their beliefs out instead of pushing then through govt. So if Christians have to reduce prayer to something secular and neutral why not ask LGBT to do the same.

As for happiness, that follows from not violating people's equal religious freedom and protection from discrimination. That would take care of itself as a result. When people restore their faith in relations with govt and in due process and consensus, this brings peace as a result.

The issue is not pushing biased faith based creeds through govt.

It not only makes people "unhappy" but it violates natural laws and human nature to coerce ANYONE to change their beliefs because another group forced it through govt. That violation and abuse is contradictory to Constitutional limits and protections. The unhappiness caused is a natural expression of dissent that is otherwise denied if this isn't resolved inclusive lyrics of all people interests and beliefs

No one is forced to change their beliefs over gay marriage. No one is being forced to marry a gay person against their will and no one is being forced to accept other gay folks who wish to marry each other.

Dear Faun
people who believe the federal govt *cannot* pass biased Faith based policies without violating the Constitution are having our beliefs violated. Same with ACA. Neither you nor the people who actually passed these take responsibility for violating Constitutional beliefs of people like me.

Thanks to that, now I understand why right to life people feel violated by laws or rulings interpreted as making abortion legal. I believe in decriminaluzing it, I believe in not banning it.

But since people do not believe in these things religiously, it is an unconstitutional violation to abuse govt to incorporate such faith based policies and practices into govt itself.

Marriage beliefs should remain legal to practice freely but nothing religiously biased should be endorsed by govt against the beliefs of others or it violates constitutional equal freedoms and protections.

Faun you don't have to be forced to participate or change atheist beliefs to SUE to Remove a Cross from a public bldg.

The Principle bring violated is called the establishment clause in the first amendment. It does not require forcing anyone, because just the govt Endorsing and Incorporating the faith based reference is grounds for lawsuit to remove it!

Do you understand that the same first amendment arguments used by atheists to remove crosses from public display can be applied here to answer your supposition?

Can you explain how a cross can be removed from public school property by a religious freedom organization suing from across the country that doesn't even see the display they are suing to remove. How is that forcing the to change their beliefs?

If it's just the Principle, that govt not endorsed a faith based belief, why aren't LGBT beliefs subject to equal treatment?

Are your LGBT beliefs so important and special they should be endorsed by govt in violation of the establishment clause, while Christians don't get that same inclusion and tolerance you are demanding by law for your beliefs?

If Crosses get removed off public buildings that aren't forcing anyone, but just one atheist or one group sued because they Don't Share those beliefs, why can't Christians sue to remove references to gay marriage they don't believe in just like the atheists argued don't belong in govt.

That entire diatribe is misguided as same-sex marriage laws have nothing to do with religion and everything to do with equal protection under the law. If straight people have the liberty and right to marry the person they love and want to be legally married to, so can gay folks. We don't allow religious beliefs to deny people rights because religious people are offended.

Yes and no Faun
Marriage laws should be passed by states; even after federal courts may strike down bad laws or bans as unconstitutional, it's still up to states to revise their own laws through their legislatures.

As for equal protections, your beliefs are yours to follow.

The problem is that marriage already crosses the line between church and state. So once that is a faith based practice, then either policy, for traditional marriage, for same sex marriage, or both ALL involve beliefs that don't belong to federal government to dictate.

Fed court can strike down laws or bans as unconstitutional, but don't have authority to write laws or create rights.

That's the point people like you don't get.

You are like trying to defend govt replacing Christianity with Universal salvationism that includes more people for equal protection. Sorry but NONE of that belongs in govt unless everyone consents. Replacing it with a different policy doesn't change the fact that marriage already involves beliefs. So will the replacement policy involve beliefs. So that's what is causing the conflict

 

[Faun]

Quite the opposite. People do have the right to marry, that is the point syriusly and I were trying to make. Emily thinks that you can't pass a law unless both sides are happy - because she claims that gay marriage violates someone else's religion. We've explained this to her before, and it didn't sink in. Obergefell didn't make SSM a requirement for any religion, it simply says the states cannot refuse to marry two people of the same sex. Windsor was a decision in which the United States Supreme Court held that restricting U.S. federal interpretation of "marriage" and "spouse" to apply only to opposite-sex unions, by Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), is unconstitutional under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment; Justice Kennedy wrote: "The federal statute is invalid, for no legitimate purpose overcomes the purpose and effect to disparage and to injure those whom the State, by its marriage laws, sought to protect in personhood and dignity." This gave Edith Windsor the federal estate tax exemption for surviving spouses.

Several people here are confused - they believe the government is usurping a religious right. Marriage, in both Windsor and Obergefell, addresses civil marriage. Several people claim SSM should be a civil union, and even civil ceremonies probably should be Civil Unions - which would violate the concept of separate but equal.

Emily - Government (SCOTUS) is not responsible for making people happy, nor are they imposing political beliefs. They are ruling solely on the point of law. You can be a devout evangelical that thinks SSM is perverse, damning, etc, and that everyone should be killed. As long as you don't kill (or threaten), it's your opinion. The government is not required to to make you happy in regards to religion, creed, etc. The first amendment grants us freedom of religion (ergo, also freedom from imposition of any religion upon us). You will never make the alt-right fundamentalist extremists happy unless SSM is overturned - which is a violation of the civil rights of all other americans. They do not choose who gets married. Just like the proposed FADA - it violates due process.

Dear Sneekin The point is about BELIEFS. The government is not in the business of deciding policy on faith based Beliefs or forcing people to change or comprise their beliefs. They may ask people to leave their beliefs out instead of pushing then through govt. So if Christians have to reduce prayer to something secular and neutral why not ask LGBT to do the same.

As for happiness, that follows from not violating people's equal religious freedom and protection from discrimination. That would take care of itself as a result. When people restore their faith in relations with govt and in due process and consensus, this brings peace as a result.

The issue is not pushing biased faith based creeds through govt.

It not only makes people "unhappy" but it violates natural laws and human nature to coerce ANYONE to change their beliefs because another group forced it through govt. That violation and abuse is contradictory to Constitutional limits and protections. The unhappiness caused is a natural expression of dissent that is otherwise denied if this isn't resolved inclusive lyrics of all people interests and beliefs

No one is forced to change their beliefs over gay marriage. No one is being forced to marry a gay person against their will and no one is being forced to accept other gay folks who wish to marry each other.

Dear Faun
people who believe the federal govt *cannot* pass biased Faith based policies without violating the Constitution are having our beliefs violated. Same with ACA. Neither you nor the people who actually passed these take responsibility for violating Constitutional beliefs of people like me.

Thanks to that, now I understand why right to life people feel violated by laws or rulings interpreted as making abortion legal. I believe in decriminaluzing it, I believe in not banning it.

But since people do not believe in these things religiously, it is an unconstitutional violation to abuse govt to incorporate such faith based policies and practices into govt itself.

Marriage beliefs should remain legal to practice freely but nothing religiously biased should be endorsed by govt against the beliefs of others or it violates constitutional equal freedoms and protections.

Faun you don't have to be forced to participate or change atheist beliefs to SUE to Remove a Cross from a public bldg.

The Principle bring violated is called the establishment clause in the first amendment. It does not require forcing anyone, because just the govt Endorsing and Incorporating the faith based reference is grounds for lawsuit to remove it!

Do you understand that the same first amendment arguments used by atheists to remove crosses from public display can be applied here to answer your supposition?

Can you explain how a cross can be removed from public school property by a religious freedom organization suing from across the country that doesn't even see the display they are suing to remove. How is that forcing the to change their beliefs?

If it's just the Principle, that govt not endorsed a faith based belief, why aren't LGBT beliefs subject to equal treatment?

Are your LGBT beliefs so important and special they should be endorsed by govt in violation of the establishment clause, while Christians don't get that same inclusion and tolerance you are demanding by law for your beliefs?

If Crosses get removed off public buildings that aren't forcing anyone, but just one atheist or one group sued because they Don't Share those beliefs, why can't Christians sue to remove references to gay marriage they don't believe in just like the atheists argued don't belong in govt.

That entire diatribe is misguided as same-sex marriage laws have nothing to do with religion and everything to do with equal protection under the law. If straight people have the liberty and right to marry the person they love and want to be legally married to, so can gay folks. We don't allow religious beliefs to deny people rights because religious people are offended.

Yes and no Faun
Marriage laws should be passed by states; even after federal courts may strike down bad laws or bans as unconstitutional, it's still up to states to revise their own laws through their legislatures.

As for equal protections, your beliefs are yours to follow.

The problem is that marriage already crosses the line between church and state. So once that is a faith based practice, then either policy, for traditional marriage, for same sex marriage, or both ALL involve beliefs that don't belong to federal government to dictate.

Fed court can strike down laws or bans as unconstitutional, but don't have authority to write laws or create rights.

That's the point people like you don't get.

You are like trying to defend govt replacing Christianity with Universal salvationism that includes more people for equal protection. Sorry but NONE of that belongs in govt unless everyone consents. Replacing it with a different policy doesn't change the fact that marriage already involves beliefs. So will the replacement policy involve beliefs. So that's what is causing the conflict

It's like you're oblivous to what happened regarding Obergfell. Marriage laws are still written by the states. Obergfell did not write laws or create rights. Marriage is the union of two people. The race, creed, gender, or religion of them matters not in the eyes of the law.

 

[emilynghiem]

Dear Sneekin The point is about BELIEFS. The government is not in the business of deciding policy on faith based Beliefs or forcing people to change or comprise their beliefs. They may ask people to leave their beliefs out instead of pushing then through govt. So if Christians have to reduce prayer to something secular and neutral why not ask LGBT to do the same.

As for happiness, that follows from not violating people's equal religious freedom and protection from discrimination. That would take care of itself as a result. When people restore their faith in relations with govt and in due process and consensus, this brings peace as a result.

The issue is not pushing biased faith based creeds through govt.

It not only makes people "unhappy" but it violates natural laws and human nature to coerce ANYONE to change their beliefs because another group forced it through govt. That violation and abuse is contradictory to Constitutional limits and protections. The unhappiness caused is a natural expression of dissent that is otherwise denied if this isn't resolved inclusive lyrics of all people interests and beliefs

No one is forced to change their beliefs over gay marriage. No one is being forced to marry a gay person against their will and no one is being forced to accept other gay folks who wish to marry each other.

Dear Faun
people who believe the federal govt *cannot* pass biased Faith based policies without violating the Constitution are having our beliefs violated. Same with ACA. Neither you nor the people who actually passed these take responsibility for violating Constitutional beliefs of people like me.

Thanks to that, now I understand why right to life people feel violated by laws or rulings interpreted as making abortion legal. I believe in decriminaluzing it, I believe in not banning it.

But since people do not believe in these things religiously, it is an unconstitutional violation to abuse govt to incorporate such faith based policies and practices into govt itself.

Marriage beliefs should remain legal to practice freely but nothing religiously biased should be endorsed by govt against the beliefs of others or it violates constitutional equal freedoms and protections.

Faun you don't have to be forced to participate or change atheist beliefs to SUE to Remove a Cross from a public bldg.

The Principle bring violated is called the establishment clause in the first amendment. It does not require forcing anyone, because just the govt Endorsing and Incorporating the faith based reference is grounds for lawsuit to remove it!

Do you understand that the same first amendment arguments used by atheists to remove crosses from public display can be applied here to answer your supposition?

Can you explain how a cross can be removed from public school property by a religious freedom organization suing from across the country that doesn't even see the display they are suing to remove. How is that forcing the to change their beliefs?

If it's just the Principle, that govt not endorsed a faith based belief, why aren't LGBT beliefs subject to equal treatment?

Are your LGBT beliefs so important and special they should be endorsed by govt in violation of the establishment clause, while Christians don't get that same inclusion and tolerance you are demanding by law for your beliefs?

If Crosses get removed off public buildings that aren't forcing anyone, but just one atheist or one group sued because they Don't Share those beliefs, why can't Christians sue to remove references to gay marriage they don't believe in just like the atheists argued don't belong in govt.

That entire diatribe is misguided as same-sex marriage laws have nothing to do with religion and everything to do with equal protection under the law. If straight people have the liberty and right to marry the person they love and want to be legally married to, so can gay folks. We don't allow religious beliefs to deny people rights because religious people are offended.

Yes and no Faun
Marriage laws should be passed by states; even after federal courts may strike down bad laws or bans as unconstitutional, it's still up to states to revise their own laws through their legislatures.

As for equal protections, your beliefs are yours to follow.

The problem is that marriage already crosses the line between church and state. So once that is a faith based practice, then either policy, for traditional marriage, for same sex marriage, or both ALL involve beliefs that don't belong to federal government to dictate.

Fed court can strike down laws or bans as unconstitutional, but don't have authority to write laws or create rights.

That's the point people like you don't get.

You are like trying to defend govt replacing Christianity with Universal salvationism that includes more people for equal protection. Sorry but NONE of that belongs in govt unless everyone consents. Replacing it with a different policy doesn't change the fact that marriage already involves beliefs. So will the replacement policy involve beliefs. So that's what is causing the conflict

It's like you're oblivous to what happened regarding Obergfell. Marriage laws are still written by the states. Obergfell did not write laws or create rights. Marriage is the union of two people. The race, creed, gender, or religion of them matters not in the eyes of the law.

Almost Faun You could promote Civil Unions as neutral contracts between people independent of social relationships. But bringing in and using the term Marriage involves Beliefs about Marriage. You might see this as a neutral term. But it's not neutral for people with religious beliefs about Marriage. It's like using the term Shariah to mean secular laws, but this discriminates against people for which Shariah means spiritual duties and practice within their faith -- to them it's not a neutral secular term.

So that's what's going wrong. These laws and rulings aren't staying secular as you intend and interpret. They cross lines into affecting areas of faith.

 

[emilynghiem]

PS thanks Faun for trying to talk through this, reason and understand it. Especially where it doesn't affect you, if it doesn't matter to you if secular laws use the word Marriage to mean secular civil contracts, or states rights vs federal rulings don't affect you and your beliefs. They do affect others whose beliefs are violated.

To me, it's no big deal to use the term Jihadist to mean warmongering terrorists who worship Jihadist as War against the world. But to Muslims this is co-opting their faith and terms for spiritual practice in abusive contradictory ways. So if we write public laws and statements, it is imposing on or establishing adverse beliefs to use language in ways that conflict with people of faith for which these terms mean sacred things.

I don't always get it either, when it seems secular to me too, but out of respect for those who have other beliefs I will try to include them and their limits.

So if my LGBT friends need public endorsement of certain policies to feel equally represented in laws, let's find a way to achieve that inclusion WITHOUT overstepping bounds and unintentionally excluding or violating beliefs of others in the process.

 

[Faun]

No one is forced to change their beliefs over gay marriage. No one is being forced to marry a gay person against their will and no one is being forced to accept other gay folks who wish to marry each other.

Dear Faun
people who believe the federal govt *cannot* pass biased Faith based policies without violating the Constitution are having our beliefs violated. Same with ACA. Neither you nor the people who actually passed these take responsibility for violating Constitutional beliefs of people like me.

Thanks to that, now I understand why right to life people feel violated by laws or rulings interpreted as making abortion legal. I believe in decriminaluzing it, I believe in not banning it.

But since people do not believe in these things religiously, it is an unconstitutional violation to abuse govt to incorporate such faith based policies and practices into govt itself.

Marriage beliefs should remain legal to practice freely but nothing religiously biased should be endorsed by govt against the beliefs of others or it violates constitutional equal freedoms and protections.

Faun you don't have to be forced to participate or change atheist beliefs to SUE to Remove a Cross from a public bldg.

The Principle bring violated is called the establishment clause in the first amendment. It does not require forcing anyone, because just the govt Endorsing and Incorporating the faith based reference is grounds for lawsuit to remove it!

Do you understand that the same first amendment arguments used by atheists to remove crosses from public display can be applied here to answer your supposition?

Can you explain how a cross can be removed from public school property by a religious freedom organization suing from across the country that doesn't even see the display they are suing to remove. How is that forcing the to change their beliefs?

If it's just the Principle, that govt not endorsed a faith based belief, why aren't LGBT beliefs subject to equal treatment?

Are your LGBT beliefs so important and special they should be endorsed by govt in violation of the establishment clause, while Christians don't get that same inclusion and tolerance you are demanding by law for your beliefs?

If Crosses get removed off public buildings that aren't forcing anyone, but just one atheist or one group sued because they Don't Share those beliefs, why can't Christians sue to remove references to gay marriage they don't believe in just like the atheists argued don't belong in govt.

That entire diatribe is misguided as same-sex marriage laws have nothing to do with religion and everything to do with equal protection under the law. If straight people have the liberty and right to marry the person they love and want to be legally married to, so can gay folks. We don't allow religious beliefs to deny people rights because religious people are offended.

Yes and no Faun
Marriage laws should be passed by states; even after federal courts may strike down bad laws or bans as unconstitutional, it's still up to states to revise their own laws through their legislatures.

As for equal protections, your beliefs are yours to follow.

The problem is that marriage already crosses the line between church and state. So once that is a faith based practice, then either policy, for traditional marriage, for same sex marriage, or both ALL involve beliefs that don't belong to federal government to dictate.

Fed court can strike down laws or bans as unconstitutional, but don't have authority to write laws or create rights.

That's the point people like you don't get.

You are like trying to defend govt replacing Christianity with Universal salvationism that includes more people for equal protection. Sorry but NONE of that belongs in govt unless everyone consents. Replacing it with a different policy doesn't change the fact that marriage already involves beliefs. So will the replacement policy involve beliefs. So that's what is causing the conflict

It's like you're oblivous to what happened regarding Obergfell. Marriage laws are still written by the states. Obergfell did not write laws or create rights. Marriage is the union of two people. The race, creed, gender, or religion of them matters not in the eyes of the law.

Almost Faun You could promote Civil Unions as neutral contracts between people independent of social relationships. But bringing in and using the term Marriage involves Beliefs about Marriage. You might see this as a neutral term. But it's not neutral for people with religious beliefs about Marriage. It's like using the term Shariah to mean secular laws, but this discriminates against people for which Shariah means spiritual duties and practice within their faith -- to them it's not a neutral secular term.

So that's what's going wrong. These laws and rulings aren't staying secular as you intend and interpret. They cross lines into affecting areas of faith.

There's no good [legal] reason to allow anyone, regadless of their race, creed, gender, or religion; to get married but then not call it marriage.

Marriage is "marriage" for everyone, not just for some.