Gay marriage is not a constitutional right

[emilynghiem]

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.

Dear Faun
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.

 

[Faun]

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.

Dear Faun
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.

This is about marriage, not prayer. One glaring difference, the state sanctions marriage but not prayer. Given the state sanctions marriage, they have to do so equally for all except for in cases where compelling interests prevail, such as certain age restrictions.

That it offends Christians is not a compelling interest. It could be if it forced Christians to marry folks of their same gender, but that is not the case.

So there is no compelling interest in this case to let gays marry the person of their choise, like straight folks can, but then not call it "marriage."

 

[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 in ways that don't overreach, go too far, and end up indirectly unintentionally violating other beliefs and principles.

Similar to gun laws and prolife beliefs. Those laws need to be written and focused correctly where they don't incidentally infringe on other rights .

If you want people to respect your rights, it makes sense to respect other peoples.

If you want them to hear your objections and what you need for representation, then of course, we listen to theirs too.

Like you said, the marriage laws must account for everyone.

So why would you override the objections of others, then argue the laws should reflect everyone???

How can they reflect the public unless we include all people's consent and resolve all issues causing objection!

 

[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 in ways that don't overreach, go too far, and end up indirectly unintentionally violating other beliefs and principles.

Similar to gun laws and prolife beliefs. Those laws need to be written and focused correctly where they don't incidentally infringe on other rights .

If you want people to respect your rights, it makes sense to respect other peoples.

If you want them to hear your objections and what you need for representation, then of course, we listen to theirs too.

Like you said, the marriage laws must account for everyone.

So why would you override the objections of others, then argue the laws should reflect everyone???

How can they reflect the public unless we include all people's consent and resolve all issues causing objection!

 

[emilynghiem]

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.

Dear Faun
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.

This is about marriage, not prayer. One glaring difference, the state sanctions marriage but not prayer. Given the state sanctions marriage, they have to do so equally for all except for in cases where compelling interests prevail, such as certain age restrictions.

That it offends Christians is not a compelling interest. It could be if it forced Christians to marry folks of their same gender, but that is not the case.

So there is no compelling interest in this case to let gays marry the person of their choise, like straight folks can, but then not call it "marriage."

Dear Faun
1. What marriage and prayer have in common is they both fall under religious freedom. Do you not get that?

Buddhism is not the same as Christianity but they are both covered equally under religious freedom.

Are you saying we need a separate law for Buddhism, for Christianity, for atheists for secular humanists for Muslims?

Do prayer and marriage have to be the same thing before a law applies to both?

What are you saying?

2.
If you unable to separate the social benefits of marriage from civil unions, and only keep the civil unions through govt:

Who are you to expect other people to separate their religious beliefs about marriage from the civil contracts under govt?

If you can't do it either, that's even More reason to separate marriage from govt.
If neither side can keep their beliefs out of marriage, it is truly a religious issue.
And govt should not touch or regulate anything that is such a religious matter!

You prove that argument even more.
Thank you.

 

[emilynghiem]

Dear Boss and Tennyson can I please ask your help to review where I'm getting stuck with Faun.

I'm saying that where marriage involves people's beliefs it should NOT be federal govt that decides laws. At most the States could pass laws. But when I read Faun beliefs even that is not compatible with people who believe the govt should stop at civil unions and not micromanage social benefits based on beliefs about relationships.

what do you think? Are we heading for separate policies and benefits programs dividing tax representation by party? Would that allow people to choose whether to endorse
* gay marriage and benefits or traditional marriage only
* right to health care or free market
* prochoice or prolife beliefs
* gun regulations or gun rights
* life imprisonment or death penalty
* statism vs states rights

Would that solve more problems by allowing choice of partisan platform to pay taxes under. And only keep federal law and taxes for where all parties agree, and delegate the rest proportionally by party per state. So blue states that delegate more to federal can pay and get those benefits. While red states keep more taxes except blue party citizens can still pay taxes through blue programs and micromanage the social programs they choose to relegate collectively on a national level, while allowing red party members to opt out

Would that help where all states can get their representation and not have to have everyone agree to one way or one set of beliefs

pvsi

 

[emilynghiem]

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.

Dear Faun
1. Civil unions can be for everyone and avoid the issue of marriage beliefs not everyone shares. You are free to exercise, teach and practice your beliefs about marriage, but not to impose them through govt on people of other beliefs about marriage.

To be fair to all people of all beliefs, civil unions are universal and secular.

2. If you want to impose further, that is like people who want prayer in schools to include Christian practice of invoking God through everyone joining in Christ Jesus name. I happen to understand GOD represents universal concepts that cover and include all people, but people do not agree on religious terms. It has to remain free choice where beliefs are involved.

Same with beliefs about marriage, not all people agree on religious terms, so out of respect for religious freedom it makes sense to stick with civil unions for the government to recognize as secular contracts and leave beliefs about marriage out of govt.

Again, if you believe otherwise, so do many Christians believe in integrating their beliefs through govt they believe are universal truth as well that includes all people.

3. If you all agree to open the doors of govt to endorse and incorporate all manner of beliefs into laws and public institutions, then that's fair and you are including all people.

But it's discrimination to tell Christians that references to Crosses, prayers to God through Christ, and teaching creation through God all have to be Removed from public institutions while insisting that beliefs about gay marriage and homosexuality as natural must be included for tolerance even when it violates beliefs of others that these are not natural.

It's discriminating by creed, so it violates other laws.

Faun would you agree to a resolution allowing all Christian beliefs and practices to be endorsed and implemented in public policies and institutions, including Christian healing prayer and right to life for unborn and teaching creation in schools, in exchange for allowing beliefs in gate marriage?

I'm sure an agreement can be worked out if all beliefs are included equally as you are asking.

Are you willing to incorporate and include all beliefs equally as yours? Are only the beliefs you happen to agree with? Thanks Faun

Even if we cannot agree how to accommodate all beliefs equally, at least we tried.

 

[emilynghiem]

Ps Faun the compelling interest is upholding laws consistently.

Civil unions for everyone would keep beliefs about marriage out of government and protect religious freedom of people on both sides equally.

Otherwise if one side pushes traditional marriage only or the other side imposes beliefs about marriage for everyone this violates
* beliefs of people of the other group
* beliefs of people who believe in states rights to decide either way
*beliefs of Constitutionalists like me who believe both sides should get their way without imposing on the other
*beliefs of people who believe the state should just recognize civil unions

So pushing gay marriages through govt violates beliefs of all these other people.

While sticking to just civil unions includes all of them and doesn't exclude one more than the other.
Everyone can follow their own beliefs about marriage by recognizing civil unions, so that covers all beliefs equally while yours does not.

 

[Sneekin]

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

Sorry, Emily, but it's not about BELIEFS. You've been asked this before, and I don't remember your answer, so I'll ask again. Hypothetically, let's say your faith or your intellect or your policies are against SSM. The Government struck down (did not change the law, they struck down a law that violated the constitution, several amendments). How is this asking you to change your beliefs? Are you required to marry a woman? No. Is your church, group, intellect etc ordered by the government to change? Absolutely not. You are completely off base here. It never violated your religious freedom. You are still able to hate it or like it. If it's against your religion, it's STILL against your religion, and you will note, the government itself says it cannot demand your religion change it's beliefs.

Your nonsense about prayers is different - praying out loud violates my rights if I'm not of the faith professed in the prayers - it violates MY freedom of religion. Bring peace? Seriously? Try just reading what I said, and studying the matter. You want to violate my rights, and that's acceptable. I don't want to violate your rights, and that is unacceptable to you. My suggestion? Hire an attorney at this point, maybe at 200 an hour when the money actually changes hand will it sink in for you.

 

[Sneekin]

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.

Sorry Emily, but you are wrong again. The US Government is not making faith based rulings. There is NO coercion, except in your own mind. Who is making you marry a woman? Certainly not the government. And stick with the subject. I can be a Christian and go down to city hall and demand they take a cross down. Bad example. If you live in NYC, and I live in LA, my organization can sue your city hall if they display a cross. Why? Because it violates EVERYONE'S religious freedom. Why is that such a hard concept to understand?

Gays finally are subject to equal treatment, or are trying to assure they keep what equal treatment they have. It's not endorsed by the Establishment clause....... equal rights to heterosexuals and homosexuals. Please explain why you feel heterosexuals deserve more rights? They can't sue to remove references to gay marriage from any public document, just as gays can't sue to remove references to heterosexual marriage. That's a big difference than a cross that violates my religious rights. Removal of information, be it heterosexual or homosexual is wrong, unless both sides are either removed, or included. Of course, these documents must be included. Pretty simple concept. Are you thinking that just because "you" don't believe in SSM, then they don't deserve any of the 1138 rights granted by the constitution, city, state and federal laws? that, Emily, is a gross violation of their constitutional rights. Which is why the IRS moved so quickly after Obergefell and WIndsor decisions to have all the tax laws apply to ALL marriages. After all, Emily, I think you fail to grasp there's really no such thing as SSM or heterosexual marriage anymore, it's just simply civil marriage.

 

[Sneekin]

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!

Emily, hire an attorney. SCOTUS did not make new law. They ruled the laws of EACH state unconstitutional. Why? Because we don't vote on civil rights. A civil right applies to ALL people, not just the people you wish to apply them to. You are protected equally. You are represented equally. You simply either can't comprehend this, or doing a great job of faking ignorance of the facts. Christians CAN'T impose their views on me. Get with the program. Again - the judiciary created no law - they simply overturned state bans against SSM because they violated multiple constitutional amendments. That's not a new law, it's actually elimination of a standing ILLEGAL law.

 

[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

Sorry, Emily, but it's not about BELIEFS. You've been asked this before, and I don't remember your answer, so I'll ask again. Hypothetically, let's say your faith or your intellect or your policies are against SSM. The Government struck down (did not change the law, they struck down a law that violated the constitution, several amendments). How is this asking you to change your beliefs? Are you required to marry a woman? No. Is your church, group, intellect etc ordered by the government to change? Absolutely not. You are completely off base here. It never violated your religious freedom. You are still able to hate it or like it. If it's against your religion, it's STILL against your religion, and you will note, the government itself says it cannot demand your religion change it's beliefs.

Your nonsense about prayers is different - praying out loud violates my rights if I'm not of the faith professed in the prayers - it violates MY freedom of religion. Bring peace? Seriously? Try just reading what I said, and studying the matter. You want to violate my rights, and that's acceptable. I don't want to violate your rights, and that is unacceptable to you. My suggestion? Hire an attorney at this point, maybe at 200 an hour when the money actually changes hand will it sink in for you.

Dear Sneekin
1. I have stated consistently that the bans excluding gay marriage are equally unconstitutional *for the same reasons* and I agree that Doma and other faith based and biased laws DO need to be struck down
2. By that same standard, neither can govt pass laws that introduce Other Biases on marriage equally faith based, and relative to people's values and beliefs
3. I pointed out that Atheists are not "forced" to be or change to other beliefs to sue to Remove Crosses from public buildings. Where in the First Amendment does it require someone to be "forced" before they defend their freedom NOT to have govt establish a belief they don't share?
4. So I'm asking to be Consistent about the Principle of separating beliefs from govt.

If Christians are expected not to impose their beliefs about prayer and practice and expression in public institutions, it's only fair to treat LGBT beliefs expression and practice the same way.

Sneekin I'm also for supporting ALL beliefs to be allowed in public institutions if gay marriage is going to be recognized.

Why don't you and Faun treat prayer and marriage as equal free exercise of one's beliefs?

If it's because marriage involves social and financial benefits through govt, why can't that be done through civil contracts and unions for everyone? Why can't marriage be kept in private as a personal choice, and keep civil unions "for everyone" through the state?

 

[Sneekin]

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.

Emily, crack open a dictionary, and look up the definition of jihad - it means HOLY WAR. Not a Muslim Holy War. It's not co-opting their faith. Perhaps you should go to as mosque as well, and talk to an Imam.

Your LGBT friends don't need endorsement, they need to be sure the public acknowledges the fact that LGBT persons have all of the rights that non-LGBT have. You still don't get it. No one is overstepping bounds except those that violate the laws of the LGBT. Just as cake baking and gay marriage. If the laws of my city or state say that the public cannot discriminate either by race, color, creed, national origin, sex, age, or sexual persuasion, then a cake business, being a public business, BY LAW cannot refuse to make a wedding cake for gays. If your city or state does not have sexual persuasion in the law, then the bakers most certainly can. Pretty simple concept. In over half the counties in Indiana, it's perfectly legal to refuse to make a cake, take pictures, etc at a gay wedding. Move to Indianapolis, South Bend, and most other college towns, then you you CANNOT refuse. No bounds are being overstepped. I've had a business for many years - and I know what laws must be obeyed to keep a business license. You deserve to be sued, if you refuse to obey the law.

 

[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.

Sorry Emily, but you are wrong again. The US Government is not making faith based rulings. There is NO coercion, except in your own mind. Who is making you marry a woman? Certainly not the government. And stick with the subject. I can be a Christian and go down to city hall and demand they take a cross down. Bad example. If you live in NYC, and I live in LA, my organization can sue your city hall if they display a cross. Why? Because it violates EVERYONE'S religious freedom. Why is that such a hard concept to understand?

Gays finally are subject to equal treatment, or are trying to assure they keep what equal treatment they have. It's not endorsed by the Establishment clause....... equal rights to heterosexuals and homosexuals. Please explain why you feel heterosexuals deserve more rights? They can't sue to remove references to gay marriage from any public document, just as gays can't sue to remove references to heterosexual marriage. That's a big difference than a cross that violates my religious rights. Removal of information, be it heterosexual or homosexual is wrong, unless both sides are either removed, or included. Of course, these documents must be included. Pretty simple concept. Are you thinking that just because "you" don't believe in SSM, then they don't deserve any of the 1138 rights granted by the constitution, city, state and federal laws? that, Emily, is a gross violation of their constitutional rights. Which is why the IRS moved so quickly after Obergefell and WIndsor decisions to have all the tax laws apply to ALL marriages. After all, Emily, I think you fail to grasp there's really no such thing as SSM or heterosexual marriage anymore, it's just simply civil marriage.

Dear Sneekin
Then you could say the same of Atheists, that a cross on a public building or on a teachers memorial on public property is "not forcing" them to change their beliefs.

Their beliefs including separation of church and state, so it's the principle that is violated not the content.

Same with beliefs on States rights vs Statism.

It's the principle being violated.

Nobody has to be "forced" to prove the Principle in Constitutional laws is being violated.

This may be an unchartered area of law: what do we do when there are clashing political beliefs on both sides? How do we protect citizens on both sides from discrimination against one creed or another by govt laws?

I think this problem has been going on, and overdue to be addressed.

Both sides have inalienable political and religious beliefs, and as a Constitutionalist I believe the govt is required to resolve all grievances and ensure equal representation and free exercise of people of both beliefs without exclusion, imposition or discrimination. So how do we resolve this? Where all beliefs are treated equally and none imposed on each other through govt.

 

[Sneekin]

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.

Dear Faun
1. Civil unions can be for everyone and avoid the issue of marriage beliefs not everyone shares. You are free to exercise, teach and practice your beliefs about marriage, but not to impose them through govt on people of other beliefs about marriage.

To be fair to all people of all beliefs, civil unions are universal and secular.

2. If you want to impose further, that is like people who want prayer in schools to include Christian practice of invoking God through everyone joining in Christ Jesus name. I happen to understand GOD represents universal concepts that cover and include all people, but people do not agree on religious terms. It has to remain free choice where beliefs are involved.

Same with beliefs about marriage, not all people agree on religious terms, so out of respect for religious freedom it makes sense to stick with civil unions for the government to recognize as secular contracts and leave beliefs about marriage out of govt.

Again, if you believe otherwise, so do many Christians believe in integrating their beliefs through govt they believe are universal truth as well that includes all people.

3. If you all agree to open the doors of govt to endorse and incorporate all manner of beliefs into laws and public institutions, then that's fair and you are including all people.

But it's discrimination to tell Christians that references to Crosses, prayers to God through Christ, and teaching creation through God all have to be Removed from public institutions while insisting that beliefs about gay marriage and homosexuality as natural must be included for tolerance even when it violates beliefs of others that these are not natural.

It's discriminating by creed, so it violates other laws.

Faun would you agree to a resolution allowing all Christian beliefs and practices to be endorsed and implemented in public policies and institutions, including Christian healing prayer and right to life for unborn and teaching creation in schools, in exchange for allowing beliefs in gate marriage?

I'm sure an agreement can be worked out if all beliefs are included equally as you are asking.

Are you willing to incorporate and include all beliefs equally as yours? Are only the beliefs you happen to agree with? Thanks Faun

Even if we cannot agree how to accommodate all beliefs equally, at least we tried.

The courts already ruled on civil unions versus marriage. Marriage is a civil contract between 2 persons. civil unions are being eliminated in some states already. You are using the concept of separate but equal, which, in and of itself is also grossly illegal. Do you also agree we need different doors, restaurants, drinking fountains for minorities? Because that's what you say when you demand SSM must be called civil unions. That's separate but equal, illegal, and already ruled upon by the SCOTUS YEARS AGO, Emily!

 

[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.

Emily, crack open a dictionary, and look up the definition of jihad - it means HOLY WAR. Not a Muslim Holy War. It's not co-opting their faith. Perhaps you should go to as mosque as well, and talk to an Imam.

Your LGBT friends don't need endorsement, they need to be sure the public acknowledges the fact that LGBT persons have all of the rights that non-LGBT have. You still don't get it. No one is overstepping bounds except those that violate the laws of the LGBT. Just as cake baking and gay marriage. If the laws of my city or state say that the public cannot discriminate either by race, color, creed, national origin, sex, age, or sexual persuasion, then a cake business, being a public business, BY LAW cannot refuse to make a wedding cake for gays. If your city or state does not have sexual persuasion in the law, then the bakers most certainly can. Pretty simple concept. In over half the counties in Indiana, it's perfectly legal to refuse to make a cake, take pictures, etc at a gay wedding. Move to Indianapolis, South Bend, and most other college towns, then you you CANNOT refuse. No bounds are being overstepped. I've had a business for many years - and I know what laws must be obeyed to keep a business license. You deserve to be sued, if you refuse to obey the law.

Dear Sneekin
Sorry but to Muslims, Jihad means an internal struggle in the conscience to follow what is right and seek peace not war. It is a struggle or spiritual fight but to resist wrong and live right.

As for marriage, and what defines gender, if people don't agree on beliefs that is not for govt to define.

Marriage and relations are spiritual.

People need to decide these things for themselves by free choice.

Now if we all Agree on laws, such as on murder, then yes we can pass laws and these respect consent of the governed and are enforced and binding contracts we agree to live by.

But where we don't agree, such as people believing abortion counts as murder, we don't allow that belief into govt as law.

The right to life who believe in including unborn have to practice their beliefs in private .
So I'm saying to treat right to marriage the same way out of respect for people of other beliefs.

We can agree to civil unions so keep that in govt for all people without discrimination.

But keep out beliefs about marriage that remain free in private. Just like right to life beliefs not everyone shares eithet.

 

[Sneekin]

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

Sorry, Emily, but it's not about BELIEFS. You've been asked this before, and I don't remember your answer, so I'll ask again. Hypothetically, let's say your faith or your intellect or your policies are against SSM. The Government struck down (did not change the law, they struck down a law that violated the constitution, several amendments). How is this asking you to change your beliefs? Are you required to marry a woman? No. Is your church, group, intellect etc ordered by the government to change? Absolutely not. You are completely off base here. It never violated your religious freedom. You are still able to hate it or like it. If it's against your religion, it's STILL against your religion, and you will note, the government itself says it cannot demand your religion change it's beliefs.

Your nonsense about prayers is different - praying out loud violates my rights if I'm not of the faith professed in the prayers - it violates MY freedom of religion. Bring peace? Seriously? Try just reading what I said, and studying the matter. You want to violate my rights, and that's acceptable. I don't want to violate your rights, and that is unacceptable to you. My suggestion? Hire an attorney at this point, maybe at 200 an hour when the money actually changes hand will it sink in for you.

Dear Sneekin
1. I have stated consistently that the bans excluding gay marriage are equally unconstitutional *for the same reasons* and I agree that Doma and other faith based and biased laws DO need to be struck down
2. By that same standard, neither can govt pass laws that introduce Other Biases on marriage equally faith based, and relative to people's values and beliefs
3. I pointed out that Atheists are not "forced" to be or change to other beliefs to sue to Remove Crosses from public buildings. Where in the First Amendment does it require someone to be "forced" before they defend their freedom NOT to have govt establish a belief they don't share?
4. So I'm asking to be Consistent about the Principle of separating beliefs from govt.

If Christians are expected not to impose their beliefs about prayer and practice and expression in public institutions, it's only fair to treat LGBT beliefs expression and practice the same way.

Sneekin I'm also for supporting ALL beliefs to be allowed in public institutions if gay marriage is going to be recognized.

Why don't you and Faun treat prayer and marriage as equal free exercise of one's beliefs?

If it's because marriage involves social and financial benefits through govt, why can't that be done through civil contracts and unions for everyone? Why can't marriage be kept in private as a personal choice, and keep civil unions "for everyone" through the state?

1, DOMA was struck down several years ago, Emily. 2. The govt ruled that several states had ILLEGAL LAWS on the books that banned SSM. That is not introducing bias. Using your logic, I guess I'll go to the corner and buy me a slave?. 3. No one is forced to have a belief. Please produce evidence that any Christian is required to perform, attend, endorse or agree with SSM. They most certainly aren't, and if you'd take the few minutes it would require for you to read Obergefell, you would understand that your concerns were SPECIFICALLY ADDRESSED. 4. There already is a separation of church and state. You are really trying to see issues that don't exist, and you fail to grasp some basic concepts. Christians CAN'T impose their prayer, practice and expressions in public places, it violates the first amendment. LGBT is saying that they have the same rights as Christians to be married, and that state laws in some states illegally banned them. SCOTUS invalidated those laws. You keep babbling about all beliefs need to be exercised the same. That's all LGBT wish to do. If Christians can marry, so can they. Prayer is not a civil right. Marriage is. Civil Unions instead of marriage for gays is PATENTLY illegal, as you've been told before, because you are claiming separate but equal.

Since some states are eliminating civil unions, why would we rewrite laws to pacify a few people? Over 68 percent agree with SSM in the US. As marriage. Why should someone who's LGBT have to keep their marriage silent, when a Christian or straight does not? That too would be separate laws based on sexual orientation. Why can't you grasp the fact that a religious marriage is called Holy Matrimony, and Marriage is a civil term that's been used for over 10,000 years, prior to christianity, and referred to both SSM and straight marriages? Hmmm?

 

[emilynghiem]

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.

Dear Faun
1. Civil unions can be for everyone and avoid the issue of marriage beliefs not everyone shares. You are free to exercise, teach and practice your beliefs about marriage, but not to impose them through govt on people of other beliefs about marriage.

To be fair to all people of all beliefs, civil unions are universal and secular.

2. If you want to impose further, that is like people who want prayer in schools to include Christian practice of invoking God through everyone joining in Christ Jesus name. I happen to understand GOD represents universal concepts that cover and include all people, but people do not agree on religious terms. It has to remain free choice where beliefs are involved.

Same with beliefs about marriage, not all people agree on religious terms, so out of respect for religious freedom it makes sense to stick with civil unions for the government to recognize as secular contracts and leave beliefs about marriage out of govt.

Again, if you believe otherwise, so do many Christians believe in integrating their beliefs through govt they believe are universal truth as well that includes all people.

3. If you all agree to open the doors of govt to endorse and incorporate all manner of beliefs into laws and public institutions, then that's fair and you are including all people.

But it's discrimination to tell Christians that references to Crosses, prayers to God through Christ, and teaching creation through God all have to be Removed from public institutions while insisting that beliefs about gay marriage and homosexuality as natural must be included for tolerance even when it violates beliefs of others that these are not natural.

It's discriminating by creed, so it violates other laws.

Faun would you agree to a resolution allowing all Christian beliefs and practices to be endorsed and implemented in public policies and institutions, including Christian healing prayer and right to life for unborn and teaching creation in schools, in exchange for allowing beliefs in gate marriage?

I'm sure an agreement can be worked out if all beliefs are included equally as you are asking.

Are you willing to incorporate and include all beliefs equally as yours? Are only the beliefs you happen to agree with? Thanks Faun

Even if we cannot agree how to accommodate all beliefs equally, at least we tried.

The courts already ruled on civil unions versus marriage. Marriage is a civil contract between 2 persons. civil unions are being eliminated in some states already. You are using the concept of separate but equal, which, in and of itself is also grossly illegal. Do you also agree we need different doors, restaurants, drinking fountains for minorities? Because that's what you say when you demand SSM must be called civil unions. That's separate but equal, illegal, and already ruled upon by the SCOTUS YEARS AGO, Emily!

Dear Sneekin
If you say marriage is different from prayer, how can you say it is like public accommodations?

And orientation is not like race and racial segregation.

1. Race is determined even before birth by the genetics of the two parents even before conception because their DNA is set. Orientation is spiritual either from birth by conditions in the womb, or environment such as homosexuality resulting from sexual or other abuse, or spiritual karma. Peope have changed their orientation similar to changing ones identity of faith, which can't be said of race which is fixed genetically.

2. Why are you taking it as insulting to treat LGBT beliefs as other beliefs or creeds that are someone s free choice and right to exercise freely without discrimination?

What is wrong with separate but equal political parties or religions?
Is it offensive to have Catholics practice closed communion and eucharist while Lutherans have open ones anyone can participate in?

 

[Sneekin]

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.

Dear Faun
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.

This is seriously getting old. My daughter and her husband was married by a judge. It's a marriage. My two gay friends got married in a church by a minister. It's also a marriage. Do you actually know the costs involved to make civil unions the same as marriage? Apparently not. Each person, going to the most cut-rate attorney would be paying around 10,000 or more to obtain these rights. And yes, t checked it out. You don't determine who is married and who uses the almost non-existent separate but equal term that's also ILLEGAL. Try and pay attention. You are now just being rude. There are 1138 separate rights granted by marriage. Do you not grasp what the costs would be to put that in a contract? Not to mention, your claims fly in the face of the SCOTUS ruling. READ THE RULING.

 

[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

Sorry, Emily, but it's not about BELIEFS. You've been asked this before, and I don't remember your answer, so I'll ask again. Hypothetically, let's say your faith or your intellect or your policies are against SSM. The Government struck down (did not change the law, they struck down a law that violated the constitution, several amendments). How is this asking you to change your beliefs? Are you required to marry a woman? No. Is your church, group, intellect etc ordered by the government to change? Absolutely not. You are completely off base here. It never violated your religious freedom. You are still able to hate it or like it. If it's against your religion, it's STILL against your religion, and you will note, the government itself says it cannot demand your religion change it's beliefs.

Your nonsense about prayers is different - praying out loud violates my rights if I'm not of the faith professed in the prayers - it violates MY freedom of religion. Bring peace? Seriously? Try just reading what I said, and studying the matter. You want to violate my rights, and that's acceptable. I don't want to violate your rights, and that is unacceptable to you. My suggestion? Hire an attorney at this point, maybe at 200 an hour when the money actually changes hand will it sink in for you.

Dear Sneekin
1. I have stated consistently that the bans excluding gay marriage are equally unconstitutional *for the same reasons* and I agree that Doma and other faith based and biased laws DO need to be struck down
2. By that same standard, neither can govt pass laws that introduce Other Biases on marriage equally faith based, and relative to people's values and beliefs
3. I pointed out that Atheists are not "forced" to be or change to other beliefs to sue to Remove Crosses from public buildings. Where in the First Amendment does it require someone to be "forced" before they defend their freedom NOT to have govt establish a belief they don't share?
4. So I'm asking to be Consistent about the Principle of separating beliefs from govt.

If Christians are expected not to impose their beliefs about prayer and practice and expression in public institutions, it's only fair to treat LGBT beliefs expression and practice the same way.

Sneekin I'm also for supporting ALL beliefs to be allowed in public institutions if gay marriage is going to be recognized.

Why don't you and Faun treat prayer and marriage as equal free exercise of one's beliefs?

If it's because marriage involves social and financial benefits through govt, why can't that be done through civil contracts and unions for everyone? Why can't marriage be kept in private as a personal choice, and keep civil unions "for everyone" through the state?

1, DOMA was struck down several years ago, Emily. 2. The govt ruled that several states had ILLEGAL LAWS on the books that banned SSM. That is not introducing bias. Using your logic, I guess I'll go to the corner and buy me a slave?. 3. No one is forced to have a belief. Please produce evidence that any Christian is required to perform, attend, endorse or agree with SSM. They most certainly aren't, and if you'd take the few minutes it would require for you to read Obergefell, you would understand that your concerns were SPECIFICALLY ADDRESSED. 4. There already is a separation of church and state. You are really trying to see issues that don't exist, and you fail to grasp some basic concepts. Christians CAN'T impose their prayer, practice and expressions in public places, it violates the first amendment. LGBT is saying that they have the same rights as Christians to be married, and that state laws in some states illegally banned them. SCOTUS invalidated those laws. You keep babbling about all beliefs need to be exercised the same. That's all LGBT wish to do. If Christians can marry, so can they. Prayer is not a civil right. Marriage is. Civil Unions instead of marriage for gays is PATENTLY illegal, as you've been told before, because you are claiming separate but equal.

Since some states are eliminating civil unions, why would we rewrite laws to pacify a few people? Over 68 percent agree with SSM in the US. As marriage. Why should someone who's LGBT have to keep their marriage silent, when a Christian or straight does not? That too would be separate laws based on sexual orientation. Why can't you grasp the fact that a religious marriage is called Holy Matrimony, and Marriage is a civil term that's been used for over 10,000 years, prior to christianity, and referred to both SSM and straight marriages? Hmmm?

Dear Sneekin
1. Are you even reading my messages? I already said repeatedly I agree to strike down Doma and other bans as unconstitutional. Why are you arguing about this again, no matter how many times I explain I agree with you the government is right to strike those down!

2. The marriage laws were always in violation of separation of church and state. But people didn't challenge them until now. So now they have to be changed.

If states struck down civil unions and can't agree then maybe we should remove all social benefits and divide these by party.

It's like religion. If Muslims and Hindus or if catholics and protestants agree on laws, they can pass them if everyone consents. .but if not then agree to separate beliefs in private and only keep the common laws in public that don't conflict with anyone's beliefs.

3. How is it you want to blame the cost on one side? If only 4% of the population is pushing the change, and that's considered justified, why not accept the cost of the changes?

If 100% of the people can all practice their own way by reducing states to just civil unions and keeping benefits decided by individuals or parties
A. Isn't that equal protection of both sides from each other
B. Won't it reduce costs by stopping lawsuits and legislative battles by investing in separate programs

4. I hope you understand I do support gay marriage but not by imposing it through govt. If it's better to separate programs by party that's more cost effective and equally inclusive to let members of each party fund their own benefits programs and get tax credit and experience for self govt.

NOT trying to be "rude" at all, but the opposite, trying to "bend over backwards" to include ALL beliefs equally, both for and against gay marriage.

the money saved by separating beliefs by party would affect and resolve other issues as well, from the death penalty to abortion issues. So the cost benefit would be comprehensive, in investing resources in local solutions and quit fighting politically and overburdening courts and govt with issues that can be resolved by separating them.