emilynghiem
Constitutionalist / Universalist
Dear FaunThere'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.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.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.Yes and no FaunThat 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.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.
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
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.
Marriage is "marriage" for everyone, not just for some.
Everyone has the right to Prayer
but that doesn't mean that the practice of prayers should be endorsed through govt.
Civil unions can be incorporated and cover all cases. Marriage like prayer can be practiced in private and doesn't need to be connected with govt.
All social benefits can be done through civil unions and contracts and not attempt to define or regulate terms of marriage that remain free to people to choose just like how we pray or meditate.
If we don't agree on terms of social benefits or marriage, that can be done collectively through organizations of free choice, similar to choice of religious programs and practice. It doesn't have to be done through govt which can be reserved to just the secular issues of managing contracts for legal guardianship, custody, Estates etc as civil business contracts independent of beliefs about social relationships between people spiritually which govt should not be abused to regulate or endorse.