Gay marriage is not a constitutional right

[Sneekin]

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.

Marriage is a civil right. Prayer is a religious right. If I'm atheist, I don't pray. Doesn't mean I can't be married. They are completely different, as Faun so eloquently put it to you. No one is saying we need separate laws for each religion, except you yourself. Oranges are citrus. Apples are not. Do they have to be the same fruit before I can juice them? No. Prayer is a religious right, provided it doesn't impact the general public. Marriage is a civil right, and with few exceptions, everyone now can get married. You still can't have prayer in school, however, but two people of the same or opposite sexes can get married.

I think ministers have done a fine job for over 200 plus years. Not sure why you think they can't separate it now. All along, they actually have to perform a secular (non-religious) duty, for the person to be recognized by the state and federal governments. If they don't remove their religious hat, and put on their secular hat, then your marriage is not recognized by anything BUT the church. No 1138 rights, including inheritance, taxes, children, you name it. Marriage is NOT a religious issue. The actual marriage portion is a secular one. You are playing a semantics game, but fail to grasp you are talking that there is actually Holy Matrimony (religious), and at the end, Marriage (secualr) where the priest/minister signs as a representative of the STATE that these people are actually married. No need to call it a civil union, when marriage is a civil contract. When a religious entity is involved, then Holy Matrimony occurs as well.

 

[Sneekin]

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?

1. Orientation is like race, color, creed, national origin, etc (segregation can occur for any of those, including orientation). Orientation is believed to occur NON-SPIRITUALLY prior to birth. It doesn't occur from sexual abuse, because close to 50 percent of the population (male and female) would be gay, based on abuse). People don't change their orientation, that's been disproven as well. Being gay is not the act of sex. You can be straight or gay, and never have sex. so wrong.... Changing one's faith is changing your philosophy, not the same as you changing who you love.
2. LGBT is not a free choice. Why do you claim it is? You can't just change it, that's been proven literally thousands if not millions of times. ex-gays become people that are still gay, not having sex, or sneaking around having same sex behind the back of their opposite sex partner. Seen it happen too many times.
3. What's wrong with "colored only" drinking fountains, entrances, restaurants, etc? Did you really ask? Different religious beliefs and political parties do not meet the criteria for separate but equal. Add that to your list of questions to ask an attorney.
Who are you asking about Catholic v Lutheran offensiveness? It has nothing to do with separate but equal, either. Really not cool.

 

[Sneekin]

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.

Sorry, Emily, but nothing you've outlined above comes close to being truthful. Denying someone their civil rights is completely different than a christian having to hear on the news that Obergefell is the law of the land. It in NO WAY impacts non-believers of SSM. You are NOT a constructionist (proper term). Both sides can't get their way when one is out to deny rights, and the other side is saying everyone deserves the same rights. Really basic concept here.
I know of no one in the legal profession other than a handful of religious extremists that believe in civil unions. The state already recognizes MARRIAGE. CIVIL MARRIAGE. You fail to grasp that states don't even recognize religious MARRIAGES AT ALL. They only recognize that 2 same sex or opposite sex people are married when the license is signed by the Minister, Priest, Judge, etc. Try and focus on that fact. If you want to use civil unions, tell each of the churches to call their services civil unions. Makes the same amount of sense as what you've thrown about.

 

[emilynghiem]

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.

Marriage is a civil right. Prayer is a religious right. If I'm atheist, I don't pray. Doesn't mean I can't be married. They are completely different, as Faun so eloquently put it to you. No one is saying we need separate laws for each religion, except you yourself. Oranges are citrus. Apples are not. Do they have to be the same fruit before I can juice them? No. Prayer is a religious right, provided it doesn't impact the general public. Marriage is a civil right, and with few exceptions, everyone now can get married. You still can't have prayer in school, however, but two people of the same or opposite sexes can get married.

I think ministers have done a fine job for over 200 plus years. Not sure why you think they can't separate it now. All along, they actually have to perform a secular (non-religious) duty, for the person to be recognized by the state and federal governments. If they don't remove their religious hat, and put on their secular hat, then your marriage is not recognized by anything BUT the church. No 1138 rights, including inheritance, taxes, children, you name it. Marriage is NOT a religious issue. The actual marriage portion is a secular one. You are playing a semantics game, but fail to grasp you are talking that there is actually Holy Matrimony (religious), and at the end, Marriage (secualr) where the priest/minister signs as a representative of the STATE that these people are actually married. No need to call it a civil union, when marriage is a civil contract. When a religious entity is involved, then Holy Matrimony occurs as well.

Dear Sneekin
1. you sound like the right to life people who believe the babies right to life is civil and protected by law.
That's fine but the LAWS defending that right have to be Constitutionally inclusive and not biased by faith based arguments.

2. If you are saying laws should not be changed if they've been in place,
then why argue to change marriage laws to include same sex couples?

If you are asking for this recognition of "marriage as a right", why not accept the responsibility that comes with it?

It seems to me you are blaming other people for the changes it takes to accommodate beliefs you have.

3. Anyone can practice marriage beliefs just like any other cultural practice.

The part that we can all AGREE in being managed by the state is civil unions.
If we can't agree on that, then the social benefits can be divided by party also
so even the people of each state don't have to agree with each other to access
the same benefits.

Just accept responsibility for their own beliefs about
* marriage
* health care
* abortion
* drug legalization
and quit trying to impose beliefs biased by religion or party
on other people of different religious or political beliefs.

Isn't that fair and all inclusive, treating people of all creeds equally?
If none of them can be forced to pay for creeds of other people,
but each is equally free to fund benefits for members who agree
to the same terms to fund and be under?

Again, Not trying to be "rude" at all but fair and equal to all
without imposing any one set of beliefs onto anyone else who disagrees
with a policy that would violate their beliefs.

 

[Sneekin]

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.

Yep, I've read them, and I'm still shaking my head. Marriage laws did not violate the first amendment separation. They violated primarily the 14th amendment.

Read, read, read. Read why they are eliminating civil unions, domestic partnerships, etc. NO NEED FOR THEM AT ALL.

Leave religion out of this. No one but you has continually blathered on about religious marriages. The rest of us are talking about CIVIL MARRIAGE ONLY.

Using your math, 95 percent (saying that 5 percent are LGBT) wants different terms. Then of course they would pay for it....except that it's BLATANTLY ILLEGAL. Read up on it! Contact an attorney, because you fail to grasp that point of law. There's no legislative fights. That's flat out lying. Marriage is on the books in all 50 states. Why would I want to pay billions of dollars changing the laws from Marriage to Civil Unions? Don't you grasp that after that church "marriage", the couple would still then have to get a "civil union", or their children, spouses, etc have NO RIGHTS? You aren't bending over backwards. You are not reading what I'm writing, and you aren't grasping points of law. Money wouldn't be saved, it would cost BILLIONS more. I'd rather spend billions on something else - so would all the other tax payers. Please share with me what state courts are fighting SSM? Obergegell overturned it, now just a few old white men that will not get re-elected are refusing to marry anyone whatsoever (not just SSM, but ALL people).

Sorry, all people deserve the same rights. You wish to have different rights based on sexual orientation. Doesn't work that way. You wish to have different rights based on whether you get married in a church v a court house. Doesn't work that way. I suggest you read this paragraph for the next hour until it becomes clear.

 

[Sneekin]

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.

Marriage is a civil right. Prayer is a religious right. If I'm atheist, I don't pray. Doesn't mean I can't be married. They are completely different, as Faun so eloquently put it to you. No one is saying we need separate laws for each religion, except you yourself. Oranges are citrus. Apples are not. Do they have to be the same fruit before I can juice them? No. Prayer is a religious right, provided it doesn't impact the general public. Marriage is a civil right, and with few exceptions, everyone now can get married. You still can't have prayer in school, however, but two people of the same or opposite sexes can get married.

I think ministers have done a fine job for over 200 plus years. Not sure why you think they can't separate it now. All along, they actually have to perform a secular (non-religious) duty, for the person to be recognized by the state and federal governments. If they don't remove their religious hat, and put on their secular hat, then your marriage is not recognized by anything BUT the church. No 1138 rights, including inheritance, taxes, children, you name it. Marriage is NOT a religious issue. The actual marriage portion is a secular one. You are playing a semantics game, but fail to grasp you are talking that there is actually Holy Matrimony (religious), and at the end, Marriage (secualr) where the priest/minister signs as a representative of the STATE that these people are actually married. No need to call it a civil union, when marriage is a civil contract. When a religious entity is involved, then Holy Matrimony occurs as well.

Dear Sneekin
1. you sound like the right to life people who believe the babies right to life is civil and protected by law.
That's fine but the LAWS defending that right have to be Constitutionally inclusive and not biased by faith based arguments.

2. If you are saying laws should not be changed if they've been in place,
then why argue to change marriage laws to include same sex couples?

If you are asking for this recognition of "marriage as a right", why not accept the responsibility that comes with it?

It seems to me you are blaming other people for the changes it takes to accommodate beliefs you have.

3. Anyone can practice marriage beliefs just like any other cultural practice.

The part that we can all AGREE in being managed by the state is civil unions.
If we can't agree on that, then the social benefits can be divided by party also
so even the people of each state don't have to agree with each other to access
the same benefits.

Just accept responsibility for their own beliefs about
* marriage
* health care
* abortion
* drug legalization
and quit trying to impose beliefs biased by religion or party
on other people of different religious or political beliefs.

Isn't that fair and all inclusive, treating people of all creeds equally?
If none of them can be forced to pay for creeds of other people,
but each is equally free to fund benefits for members who agree
to the same terms to fund and be under?

Again, Not trying to be "rude" at all but fair and equal to all
without imposing any one set of beliefs onto anyone else who disagrees
with a policy that would violate their beliefs.

You are so off topic I refuse to address any of this.

 

[emilynghiem]

2. LGBT is not a free choice. Why do you claim it is? You can't just change it, that's been proven literally thousands if not millions of times. ex-gays become people that are still gay, not having sex, or sneaking around having same sex behind the back of their opposite sex partner. Seen it happen too many times.
3. What's wrong with "colored only" drinking fountains, entrances, restaurants, etc? Did you really ask? Different religious beliefs and political parties do not meet the criteria for separate but equal. Add that to your list of questions to ask an attorney.
Who are you asking about Catholic v Lutheran offensiveness? It has nothing to do with separate but equal, either. Really not cool.

Okay Sneekin lets' start with these two points which may explain why you think I am being rude or offensive
RE: 2. regarding free choice
A. Some people CAN and HAVE changed their orientation.
Others cannot.
So it's more like religious or political beliefs,
where some people are naturally that way all their life and cannot change how they identify, think or believe
and express their values.
It's less like race, which cannot be changed and is genetically determined.
B. Beliefs that LGBT/homosexual/transgender identity/oriention
are either 'Natural" or "unnatural" or "can change" or "cannot"
are BOTH FAITH BASED, none proven by science.

It is faith based if people like the NYC mayor's wife USED to identify as Lesbian
but now does not. It is faith based if she is bisexual, if she used to be lesbian but
"changed" to heterosexual, or if she was always heterosexual and the lesbian lifestyle was a passing phase or false/unnatural.

There are whole groups of "ex gays" and "former gays" who
believe they were always heterosexual and the homosexual conditions were temporary,unnatural and false for them.

So to them and their experiences, homosexuality is a choice to change,
and they don't believe in endorsing or promoting it as "natural."
That's their faith based belief which is equally valid as
beliefs that homosexuality IS natural for others, too.

I have found there are both going on.
Some are natural some are unnatural.
Some can change, some cannot.

RE 3. separate but equal

With the religions I am comparing recognizing different terms of
services like differences in recognizing communions and baptisms
and comparing these with differences in marriage.

If it is not offensives as 'separate but equal" to have Catholics
practice different terms of marriage and communions than
Protestants or Lutherans do,
then why is it offensive to have separate but equal marriage
practices?

Again, why can't the SECULAR civil unions be under the govt,
and the parts people disagree on be left to personal and private choice.

I think the other two parts we're getting stuck on
A. you don't see a problem with using the term marriage to mean the civil union
secular civil marriage, but I do see people of different beliefs having a problem
with this, so I am saying to be fair and accommodate them the same way
crosses are removed off public buildings to accommodate atheists
who believe it violates "separation of church and state."
In this case, people argue federal recognition of "right to marriage"
violates "separation of federal govt from states rights"

B. also you have a fear that separating benefits by party,
or some other means to prevent imposing beliefs about marriage
through govt,
1. either will cost too much
2. can't be done
3. or is offensive as separate but equal similar to racial segregation

I'm saying it's natural to separate practices by religious denomination
which has been going on. So I see this as a solution not only to the
conflicts over marriage laws, but also health care, death penalty,
social benefits funding, and other areas where people don't want
to fund each other's beliefs but want to invest in their own.

So why not separate it by party the same way religions have
developed their own programs and don't expect govt to force
their policies on the public and make everyone fund it under that?

It seems natural to me, not offensive at all but
LIBERATION not to have to fight for what you believe against other people's beliefs
and
EMPOWERING to reserve and manage your own resources
and not depend on federal govt or other people agreeing with your beliefs
to be able to defend and practice them by funding them yourself.

I see this as positive while you see it as negative and rude.
Sorry I'm trying to be fair and protect all beliefs from imposing
on each other, whether religious or political, so everyone is
represented and included equally.

 

[emilynghiem]

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

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

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

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

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.

Yep, I've read them, and I'm still shaking my head. Marriage laws did not violate the first amendment separation. They violated primarily the 14th amendment.

Read, read, read. Read why they are eliminating civil unions, domestic partnerships, etc. NO NEED FOR THEM AT ALL.

Leave religion out of this. No one but you has continually blathered on about religious marriages. The rest of us are talking about CIVIL MARRIAGE ONLY.

Using your math, 95 percent (saying that 5 percent are LGBT) wants different terms. Then of course they would pay for it....except that it's BLATANTLY ILLEGAL. Read up on it! Contact an attorney, because you fail to grasp that point of law. There's no legislative fights. That's flat out lying. Marriage is on the books in all 50 states. Why would I want to pay billions of dollars changing the laws from Marriage to Civil Unions? Don't you grasp that after that church "marriage", the couple would still then have to get a "civil union", or their children, spouses, etc have NO RIGHTS? You aren't bending over backwards. You are not reading what I'm writing, and you aren't grasping points of law. Money wouldn't be saved, it would cost BILLIONS more. I'd rather spend billions on something else - so would all the other tax payers. Please share with me what state courts are fighting SSM? Obergegell overturned it, now just a few old white men that will not get re-elected are refusing to marry anyone whatsoever (not just SSM, but ALL people).

Sorry, all people deserve the same rights. You wish to have different rights based on sexual orientation. Doesn't work that way. You wish to have different rights based on whether you get married in a church v a court house. Doesn't work that way. I suggest you read this paragraph for the next hour until it becomes clear.

Okay so we agree we are TALKING about civil marriage only.
So I am saying just use the term civil union and this would
keep religion out of it.

 

[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"
It's by principle alone, on the left this principle is called separation of church and state, on the right it's called separation of federal jurisdiction from states rights
4. Yes it's about Political Beliefs.

The belief about LGBT orientation/identity/relations are NOT proven scientifically but remain FAITH based. It's a Spiritual belief if this is natural or unnatural, if it's a choice of behavior that can change or NOT a choice.

The Belief that marriage is a Constitutional right or a practice under free exercise of religion that belongs to people or states is a Political Belief.

While I agree with you that you and anyone has the right to your belief it is a civil natural right for gay couples equally, not everyone shares this belief. Since it is faith based, it's only fair not to impose it by govt against beliefs of others.

So Sneekin and also Faun
I propose to you to pass a Constitutional Amendment on recognizing Political Beliefs such as right to marriage that is faith based, so it is Constitutional and passed by consent of people and States; and in order to make it fair where people of all political beliefs support its passage, include ALL political beliefs such as the right to life protected at conception which is also faith based.

Then write this Amendment that allows free choice to recognize and fund political beliefs separately by party so it does not impose on taxpayers of other beliefs. That would be fair to people of all beliefs.

5. Lastly I'm sorry you don't get that your belief in marriage as a right is a belief. Neither do Christians who believe right to life is natural from conception.

There are many non-Christians and even gay people and gay couples who do NOT believe in gay marriage through govt!

So this matter of preference of belief is spiritual and or political, it's a free choice, it's not about discriminating against a class of people because even that is faith based, not proven, and a choice to believe it's a born trait or why or how and whether it can change.

I believe it is spiritual, so beliefs are protected individually and can't be mandated by govt.

I believe we can form a consensus on law that respects free choice ie is not mandated through govt without consent of the public

The same way you Obama and others choose to recognize and support gay marriage, it should remain a free choice. No law forced you or Obama, you chose freely. So please recognize the same right of ALL Americans to choose freely.

 

[Sneekin]

2. LGBT is not a free choice. Why do you claim it is? You can't just change it, that's been proven literally thousands if not millions of times. ex-gays become people that are still gay, not having sex, or sneaking around having same sex behind the back of their opposite sex partner. Seen it happen too many times.
3. What's wrong with "colored only" drinking fountains, entrances, restaurants, etc? Did you really ask? Different religious beliefs and political parties do not meet the criteria for separate but equal. Add that to your list of questions to ask an attorney.
Who are you asking about Catholic v Lutheran offensiveness? It has nothing to do with separate but equal, either. Really not cool.

Okay Sneekin lets' start with these two points which may explain why you think I am being rude or offensive
RE: 2. regarding free choice
A. Some people CAN and HAVE changed their orientation.
Others cannot.
So it's more like religious or political beliefs,
where some people are naturally that way all their life and cannot change how they identify, think or believe
and express their values.
It's less like race, which cannot be changed and is genetically determined.
B. Beliefs that LGBT/homosexual/transgender identity/oriention
are either 'Natural" or "unnatural" or "can change" or "cannot"
are BOTH FAITH BASED, none proven by science.

It is faith based if people like the NYC mayor's wife USED to identify as Lesbian
but now does not. It is faith based if she is bisexual, if she used to be lesbian but
"changed" to heterosexual, or if she was always heterosexual and the lesbian lifestyle was a passing phase or false/unnatural.

There are whole groups of "ex gays" and "former gays" who
believe they were always heterosexual and the homosexual conditions were temporary,unnatural and false for them.

So to them and their experiences, homosexuality is a choice to change,
and they don't believe in endorsing or promoting it as "natural."
That's their faith based belief which is equally valid as
beliefs that homosexuality IS natural for others, too.

I have found there are both going on.
Some are natural some are unnatural.
Some can change, some cannot.

RE 3. separate but equal

With the religions I am comparing recognizing different terms of
services like differences in recognizing communions and baptisms
and comparing these with differences in marriage.

If it is not offensives as 'separate but equal" to have Catholics
practice different terms of marriage and communions than
Protestants or Lutherans do,
then why is it offensive to have separate but equal marriage
practices?

Again, why can't the SECULAR civil unions be under the govt,
and the parts people disagree on be left to personal and private choice.

I think the other two parts we're getting stuck on
A. you don't see a problem with using the term marriage to mean the civil union
secular civil marriage, but I do see people of different beliefs having a problem
with this, so I am saying to be fair and accommodate them the same way
crosses are removed off public buildings to accommodate atheists
who believe it violates "separation of church and state."
In this case, people argue federal recognition of "right to marriage"
violates "separation of federal govt from states rights"

B. also you have a fear that separating benefits by party,
or some other means to prevent imposing beliefs about marriage
through govt,
1. either will cost too much
2. can't be done
3. or is offensive as separate but equal similar to racial segregation

I'm saying it's natural to separate practices by religious denomination
which has been going on. So I see this as a solution not only to the
conflicts over marriage laws, but also health care, death penalty,
social benefits funding, and other areas where people don't want
to fund each other's beliefs but want to invest in their own.

So why not separate it by party the same way religions have
developed their own programs and don't expect govt to force
their policies on the public and make everyone fund it under that?

It seems natural to me, not offensive at all but
LIBERATION not to have to fight for what you believe against other people's beliefs
and
EMPOWERING to reserve and manage your own resources
and not depend on federal govt or other people agreeing with your beliefs
to be able to defend and practice them by funding them yourself.

I see this as positive while you see it as negative and rude.
Sorry I'm trying to be fair and protect all beliefs from imposing
on each other, whether religious or political, so everyone is
represented and included equally.

No, the facts are there. People have refused to have sex with same sex, or people in prison have had same sex relations, that is simply NOT changing their sexual orientation. Psychologists and Psychiatrists have proven it. You are wrong on changing orientations.
It's not faith based, and in studies of twins, it's been proven that there are differences in brain patterns. You are wrong on it being faith based.
Look up the definition of bisexual. If I was bisexual, and never had sex with a same sex partner, it wouldn't make me straight, and if I had sex with a male then it wouldn't make me gay. You are discredited. No one has EVER changed their orientation. They've only repressed it, and 99 percent of those get caught with their trousers down. And counting experimentation with SSM or straight sex while a youth is discredited as to identifying their gender preference - talk to the APA's.
Separate but equal - religion is a pathetic excuse. Try reading up on it - you embarrass yourself when you use that as an example, because it's apples and a rock you are comparing. Can't eat them both.
Why are you so hell bent on changing civil marriage to another name? Laws are written. It's over. Move on. You are wrong, admit it.
You have yet to address the issue of SSM in church, which would be a marriage, and my daughter in front of a JP, which you claim would be civil unions, and she would not be entitled to 1138 benefits. That is the most asinine statement you made to date - separate, and not equal, unless one pays thousands of dollars. WRONG. Courts ruled on it, you are still WRONG. Everything you say (death benefits et al) are not under civil unions, and would require millions or billions of dollars to legislate - and you haven't addressed what happens when we have the same 13 hold out states. So no, we are leaving things as is.
You go through the expenses - do the math. Google the 1138 benefits, contact an attorney, work up a price list, and then come back and tell us. Not changing. Realize that the SCOTUS didn't legalize gay marriage. They upheld the fact that it's illegal to deny someone a constitutional right. The states have their own marriage laws. Just one sentence, that it was between opposite sex people, violated the US constitution.

 

[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"
It's by principle alone, on the left this principle is called separation of church and state, on the right it's called separation of federal jurisdiction from states rights
4. Yes it's about Political Beliefs.

The belief about LGBT orientation/identity/relations are NOT proven scientifically but remain FAITH based. It's a Spiritual belief if this is natural or unnatural, if it's a choice of behavior that can change or NOT a choice.

The Belief that marriage is a Constitutional right or a practice under free exercise of religion that belongs to people or states is a Political Belief.

While I agree with you that you and anyone has the right to your belief it is a civil natural right for gay couples equally, not everyone shares this belief. Since it is faith based, it's only fair not to impose it by govt against beliefs of others.

So Sneekin and also Faun
I propose to you to pass a Constitutional Amendment on recognizing Political Beliefs such as right to marriage that is faith based, so it is Constitutional and passed by consent of people and States; and in order to make it fair where people of all political beliefs support its passage, include ALL political beliefs such as the right to life protected at conception which is also faith based.

Then write this Amendment that allows free choice to recognize and fund political beliefs separately by party so it does not impose on taxpayers of other beliefs. That would be fair to people of all beliefs.

5. Lastly I'm sorry you don't get that your belief in marriage as a right is a belief. Neither do Christians who believe right to life is natural from conception.

There are many non-Christians and even gay people and gay couples who do NOT believe in gay marriage through govt!

So this matter of preference of belief is spiritual and or political, it's a free choice, it's not about discriminating against a class of people because even that is faith based, not proven, and a choice to believe it's a born trait or why or how and whether it can change.

I believe it is spiritual, so beliefs are protected individually and can't be mandated by govt.

I believe we can form a consensus on law that respects free choice ie is not mandated through govt without consent of the public

The same way you Obama and others choose to recognize and support gay marriage, it should remain a free choice. No law forced you or Obama, you chose freely. So please recognize the same right of ALL Americans to choose freely.

PS as for cost of lawyers
This is also in violation of my Constitutional beliefs in due process and the right to petition for redress of grievances. Why should mistakes made in passing unconstitutional laws such as DOMA and ACA be charged to the contesters to correct the problem? The cost and burden should be on the proponents.

I have proposed to sue members and leaders of the Democratic Party to cover the legal costs as part of the damage.

I could not find a lawyer wiling to take this on before because the work exceeds the ability to bankroll it on comtigency. But Sneekin that is part of the tactics of legal abuse and monopoly. If lawyers control the cost and the game, no laws can be challenged without resources.

So these are not inalienable rights, but depending on political lobbying and or money.

Now however, there may be enough support to demand Democrats responsible for passing biased faith based laws and rulings pay the costs of correcting these to be Constitutional instead of imposing that cost on people who argued it wasn't Constitutional to begin with.

One person suggested having a vote in Congress on whether a bill is Constitutional or not Before proposing and voting on it through the House and Senate, so we agree up front does this require an Amendment to expand and authorize federal government to make such a law. That would save time and money fighting over states rights and religious freedom or bias in laws.

Sorry if you don't see this as compelling interest. But I see the bigger pattern of political beliefs that should be managed by conflict resolution and consensus on laws that reflects the will and consent of all people regardless of creed and which side they're on

I believe that is natural law, Constitutional duty and Government Ethics. See www.ethics-commission.net

 

[Sneekin]

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.

Yep, I've read them, and I'm still shaking my head. Marriage laws did not violate the first amendment separation. They violated primarily the 14th amendment.

Read, read, read. Read why they are eliminating civil unions, domestic partnerships, etc. NO NEED FOR THEM AT ALL.

Leave religion out of this. No one but you has continually blathered on about religious marriages. The rest of us are talking about CIVIL MARRIAGE ONLY.

Using your math, 95 percent (saying that 5 percent are LGBT) wants different terms. Then of course they would pay for it....except that it's BLATANTLY ILLEGAL. Read up on it! Contact an attorney, because you fail to grasp that point of law. There's no legislative fights. That's flat out lying. Marriage is on the books in all 50 states. Why would I want to pay billions of dollars changing the laws from Marriage to Civil Unions? Don't you grasp that after that church "marriage", the couple would still then have to get a "civil union", or their children, spouses, etc have NO RIGHTS? You aren't bending over backwards. You are not reading what I'm writing, and you aren't grasping points of law. Money wouldn't be saved, it would cost BILLIONS more. I'd rather spend billions on something else - so would all the other tax payers. Please share with me what state courts are fighting SSM? Obergegell overturned it, now just a few old white men that will not get re-elected are refusing to marry anyone whatsoever (not just SSM, but ALL people).

Sorry, all people deserve the same rights. You wish to have different rights based on sexual orientation. Doesn't work that way. You wish to have different rights based on whether you get married in a church v a court house. Doesn't work that way. I suggest you read this paragraph for the next hour until it becomes clear.

Okay so we agree we are TALKING about civil marriage only.
So I am saying just use the term civil union and this would
keep religion out of it.

Civil marriage (only) already has religion out of it - you are the only one trying to cram it in. If it's religious, it's Matrimony.Holy Matrimony. Read a book. Civil union is NOT the same, never was. Would require millions or billions just to make YOU and a handful of fundamentalist Christians happy - and not all fundies are against it either. Move on, find a new cause, this one is ruled on. Why not call it free flying frog jumping, hog rassling, or any other nonsensical name. You still failed to grasp the legal concept of separate but equal, and why it is illegal. Opened your white only lunch counter? Put up those "no coloreds allowed" signs? That is separate but equal. That is patently illegal, be it white only, black only, muslim only, LGBT only, Straight only, ages 25-30 only, etc. ILLEGAL....

 

[emilynghiem]

2. LGBT is not a free choice. Why do you claim it is? You can't just change it, that's been proven literally thousands if not millions of times. ex-gays become people that are still gay, not having sex, or sneaking around having same sex behind the back of their opposite sex partner. Seen it happen too many times.
3. What's wrong with "colored only" drinking fountains, entrances, restaurants, etc? Did you really ask? Different religious beliefs and political parties do not meet the criteria for separate but equal. Add that to your list of questions to ask an attorney.
Who are you asking about Catholic v Lutheran offensiveness? It has nothing to do with separate but equal, either. Really not cool.

Okay Sneekin lets' start with these two points which may explain why you think I am being rude or offensive
RE: 2. regarding free choice
A. Some people CAN and HAVE changed their orientation.
Others cannot.
So it's more like religious or political beliefs,
where some people are naturally that way all their life and cannot change how they identify, think or believe
and express their values.
It's less like race, which cannot be changed and is genetically determined.
B. Beliefs that LGBT/homosexual/transgender identity/oriention
are either 'Natural" or "unnatural" or "can change" or "cannot"
are BOTH FAITH BASED, none proven by science.

It is faith based if people like the NYC mayor's wife USED to identify as Lesbian
but now does not. It is faith based if she is bisexual, if she used to be lesbian but
"changed" to heterosexual, or if she was always heterosexual and the lesbian lifestyle was a passing phase or false/unnatural.

There are whole groups of "ex gays" and "former gays" who
believe they were always heterosexual and the homosexual conditions were temporary,unnatural and false for them.

So to them and their experiences, homosexuality is a choice to change,
and they don't believe in endorsing or promoting it as "natural."
That's their faith based belief which is equally valid as
beliefs that homosexuality IS natural for others, too.

I have found there are both going on.
Some are natural some are unnatural.
Some can change, some cannot.

RE 3. separate but equal

With the religions I am comparing recognizing different terms of
services like differences in recognizing communions and baptisms
and comparing these with differences in marriage.

If it is not offensives as 'separate but equal" to have Catholics
practice different terms of marriage and communions than
Protestants or Lutherans do,
then why is it offensive to have separate but equal marriage
practices?

Again, why can't the SECULAR civil unions be under the govt,
and the parts people disagree on be left to personal and private choice.

I think the other two parts we're getting stuck on
A. you don't see a problem with using the term marriage to mean the civil union
secular civil marriage, but I do see people of different beliefs having a problem
with this, so I am saying to be fair and accommodate them the same way
crosses are removed off public buildings to accommodate atheists
who believe it violates "separation of church and state."
In this case, people argue federal recognition of "right to marriage"
violates "separation of federal govt from states rights"

B. also you have a fear that separating benefits by party,
or some other means to prevent imposing beliefs about marriage
through govt,
1. either will cost too much
2. can't be done
3. or is offensive as separate but equal similar to racial segregation

I'm saying it's natural to separate practices by religious denomination
which has been going on. So I see this as a solution not only to the
conflicts over marriage laws, but also health care, death penalty,
social benefits funding, and other areas where people don't want
to fund each other's beliefs but want to invest in their own.

So why not separate it by party the same way religions have
developed their own programs and don't expect govt to force
their policies on the public and make everyone fund it under that?

It seems natural to me, not offensive at all but
LIBERATION not to have to fight for what you believe against other people's beliefs
and
EMPOWERING to reserve and manage your own resources
and not depend on federal govt or other people agreeing with your beliefs
to be able to defend and practice them by funding them yourself.

I see this as positive while you see it as negative and rude.
Sorry I'm trying to be fair and protect all beliefs from imposing
on each other, whether religious or political, so everyone is
represented and included equally.

No, the facts are there. People have refused to have sex with same sex, or people in prison have had same sex relations, that is simply NOT changing their sexual orientation. Psychologists and Psychiatrists have proven it. You are wrong on changing orientations.
It's not faith based, and in studies of twins, it's been proven that there are differences in brain patterns. You are wrong on it being faith based.
Look up the definition of bisexual. If I was bisexual, and never had sex with a same sex partner, it wouldn't make me straight, and if I had sex with a male then it wouldn't make me gay. You are discredited. No one has EVER changed their orientation. They've only repressed it, and 99 percent of those get caught with their trousers down. And counting experimentation with SSM or straight sex while a youth is discredited as to identifying their gender preference - talk to the APA's.
Separate but equal - religion is a pathetic excuse. Try reading up on it - you embarrass yourself when you use that as an example, because it's apples and a rock you are comparing. Can't eat them both.
Why are you so hell bent on changing civil marriage to another name? Laws are written. It's over. Move on. You are wrong, admit it.
You have yet to address the issue of SSM in church, which would be a marriage, and my daughter in front of a JP, which you claim would be civil unions, and she would not be entitled to 1138 benefits. That is the most asinine statement you made to date - separate, and not equal, unless one pays thousands of dollars. WRONG. Courts ruled on it, you are still WRONG. Everything you say (death benefits et al) are not under civil unions, and would require millions or billions of dollars to legislate - and you haven't addressed what happens when we have the same 13 hold out states. So no, we are leaving things as is.
You go through the expenses - do the math. Google the 1138 benefits, contact an attorney, work up a price list, and then come back and tell us. Not changing. Realize that the SCOTUS didn't legalize gay marriage. They upheld the fact that it's illegal to deny someone a constitutional right. The states have their own marriage laws. Just one sentence, that it was between opposite sex people, violated the US constitution.

Dear Sneekin
1. I understand that there are differences in the brain such as the size of certain parts that are bigger in female brains and smaller in males.
However there are people who have either come out as homosexual or come out as heterosexual after going through spiritual healing.
I'm totally in support of research if you want to prove that ALL people coming out straight have the default brain patterns of straight people so they have not changed but restored their natural born default status.
I agree if this can be proven scientifically then it can be shown it is a given condition and not a choice of behavior.
It would also prove the cases that have changed orientation instead of excluding those politically.
2. Christians should also welcome this proposal to prove spiritual healing works naturally.

The same spiritual healing would also heal the conflicts dividing people on this issue and others, because it is based on forgiveness and healing relations between people, in addition to healing individual mind body and spirit.

Congratulations Sneekin You've found another point we agree on. Yes I totally agree that consensus can be reached by research to prove what's going on


Good Job on this. Let's do it!

This research Will take the faith based issues out of the equation and correct the problems. It will also resolve political conflicts and bring consensus on laws. So yes I agree to full research on this that will include what both sides have been arguing. Thank you!!

We have a WINNER!!

 

[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"
It's by principle alone, on the left this principle is called separation of church and state, on the right it's called separation of federal jurisdiction from states rights
4. Yes it's about Political Beliefs.

The belief about LGBT orientation/identity/relations are NOT proven scientifically but remain FAITH based. It's a Spiritual belief if this is natural or unnatural, if it's a choice of behavior that can change or NOT a choice.

The Belief that marriage is a Constitutional right or a practice under free exercise of religion that belongs to people or states is a Political Belief.

While I agree with you that you and anyone has the right to your belief it is a civil natural right for gay couples equally, not everyone shares this belief. Since it is faith based, it's only fair not to impose it by govt against beliefs of others.

So Sneekin and also Faun
I propose to you to pass a Constitutional Amendment on recognizing Political Beliefs such as right to marriage that is faith based, so it is Constitutional and passed by consent of people and States; and in order to make it fair where people of all political beliefs support its passage, include ALL political beliefs such as the right to life protected at conception which is also faith based.

Then write this Amendment that allows free choice to recognize and fund political beliefs separately by party so it does not impose on taxpayers of other beliefs. That would be fair to people of all beliefs.

5. Lastly I'm sorry you don't get that your belief in marriage as a right is a belief. Neither do Christians who believe right to life is natural from conception.

There are many non-Christians and even gay people and gay couples who do NOT believe in gay marriage through govt!

So this matter of preference of belief is spiritual and or political, it's a free choice, it's not about discriminating against a class of people because even that is faith based, not proven, and a choice to believe it's a born trait or why or how and whether it can change.

I believe it is spiritual, so beliefs are protected individually and can't be mandated by govt.

I believe we can form a consensus on law that respects free choice ie is not mandated through govt without consent of the public

The same way you Obama and others choose to recognize and support gay marriage, it should remain a free choice. No law forced you or Obama, you chose freely. So please recognize the same right of ALL Americans to choose freely.

PS as for cost of lawyers
This is also in violation of my Constitutional beliefs in due process and the right to petition for redress of grievances. Why should mistakes made in passing unconstitutional laws such as DOMA and ACA be charged to the contesters to correct the problem? The cost and burden should be on the proponents.

I have proposed to sue members and leaders of the Democratic Party to cover the legal costs as part of the damage.

I could not find a lawyer wiling to take this on before because the work exceeds the ability to bankroll it on comtigency. But Sneekin that is part of the tactics of legal abuse and monopoly. If lawyers control the cost and the game, no laws can be challenged without resources.

So these are not inalienable rights, but depending on political lobbying and or money.

Now however, there may be enough support to demand Democrats responsible for passing biased faith based laws and rulings pay the costs of correcting these to be Constitutional instead of imposing that cost on people who argued it wasn't Constitutional to begin with.

One person suggested having a vote in Congress on whether a bill is Constitutional or not Before proposing and voting on it through the House and Senate, so we agree up front does this require an Amendment to expand and authorize federal government to make such a law. That would save time and money fighting over states rights and religious freedom or bias in laws.

Sorry if you don't see this as compelling interest. But I see the bigger pattern of political beliefs that should be managed by conflict resolution and consensus on laws that reflects the will and consent of all people regardless of creed and which side they're on

I believe that is natural law, Constitutional duty and Government Ethics. See www.ethics-commission.net

There are a handful of gays that don't believe in it. They, like you, fail to grasp the concept that civil marriage doesn't fall under separation of church and state. Already been ruled on. Read the Iowa Supreme Court decision that repeatedly upheld lower court rulings in Iowa that SSM on it's face, because it violates the 14th amendment of the US constitution, as well as other federal and State amendments.Gay marriage has technically been legal since the passage of the 14th amendment, try and grasp that concept. It's not faith based law. You continue to claim states can have laws on the books that grant people of separate race, sexual preference, etc different rights based on who they want to marry. Read Loving, even watch the movie - there are enough facts in the movie for you to grasp. Your religion can refuse to marry two people. It doesn't stop those people from going to a different church, city hall, or a justice of the peace and getting married. Focus, Emily, grasp the concept it's not 1st amendment. Lawyers aren't controlling the costs, you are. You are claiming LGBT needs to have different laws written for them than heterosexuals need, and that simply is not true. Laws are in place. You don't seem to comprehend that at this point, it would take a constitutional amendment. 38 states are NOT going to vote for an amendment to take away a civil right - because they know it would be challenged any way, and it would never pass, just as passing an amendment to not allow interracial couples to be able to marry would not pass. THINK.

 

[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"
It's by principle alone, on the left this principle is called separation of church and state, on the right it's called separation of federal jurisdiction from states rights
4. Yes it's about Political Beliefs.

The belief about LGBT orientation/identity/relations are NOT proven scientifically but remain FAITH based. It's a Spiritual belief if this is natural or unnatural, if it's a choice of behavior that can change or NOT a choice.

The Belief that marriage is a Constitutional right or a practice under free exercise of religion that belongs to people or states is a Political Belief.

While I agree with you that you and anyone has the right to your belief it is a civil natural right for gay couples equally, not everyone shares this belief. Since it is faith based, it's only fair not to impose it by govt against beliefs of others.

So Sneekin and also Faun
I propose to you to pass a Constitutional Amendment on recognizing Political Beliefs such as right to marriage that is faith based, so it is Constitutional and passed by consent of people and States; and in order to make it fair where people of all political beliefs support its passage, include ALL political beliefs such as the right to life protected at conception which is also faith based.

Then write this Amendment that allows free choice to recognize and fund political beliefs separately by party so it does not impose on taxpayers of other beliefs. That would be fair to people of all beliefs.

5. Lastly I'm sorry you don't get that your belief in marriage as a right is a belief. Neither do Christians who believe right to life is natural from conception.

There are many non-Christians and even gay people and gay couples who do NOT believe in gay marriage through govt!

So this matter of preference of belief is spiritual and or political, it's a free choice, it's not about discriminating against a class of people because even that is faith based, not proven, and a choice to believe it's a born trait or why or how and whether it can change.

I believe it is spiritual, so beliefs are protected individually and can't be mandated by govt.

I believe we can form a consensus on law that respects free choice ie is not mandated through govt without consent of the public

The same way you Obama and others choose to recognize and support gay marriage, it should remain a free choice. No law forced you or Obama, you chose freely. So please recognize the same right of ALL Americans to choose freely.

PS as for cost of lawyers
This is also in violation of my Constitutional beliefs in due process and the right to petition for redress of grievances. Why should mistakes made in passing unconstitutional laws such as DOMA and ACA be charged to the contesters to correct the problem? The cost and burden should be on the proponents.

I have proposed to sue members and leaders of the Democratic Party to cover the legal costs as part of the damage.

I could not find a lawyer wiling to take this on before because the work exceeds the ability to bankroll it on comtigency. But Sneekin that is part of the tactics of legal abuse and monopoly. If lawyers control the cost and the game, no laws can be challenged without resources.

So these are not inalienable rights, but depending on political lobbying and or money.

Now however, there may be enough support to demand Democrats responsible for passing biased faith based laws and rulings pay the costs of correcting these to be Constitutional instead of imposing that cost on people who argued it wasn't Constitutional to begin with.

One person suggested having a vote in Congress on whether a bill is Constitutional or not Before proposing and voting on it through the House and Senate, so we agree up front does this require an Amendment to expand and authorize federal government to make such a law. That would save time and money fighting over states rights and religious freedom or bias in laws.

Sorry if you don't see this as compelling interest. But I see the bigger pattern of political beliefs that should be managed by conflict resolution and consensus on laws that reflects the will and consent of all people regardless of creed and which side they're on

I believe that is natural law, Constitutional duty and Government Ethics. See www.ethics-commission.net

There are a handful of gays that don't believe in it. They, like you, fail to grasp the concept that civil marriage doesn't fall under separation of church and state. Already been ruled on. Read the Iowa Supreme Court decision that repeatedly upheld lower court rulings in Iowa that SSM on it's face, because it violates the 14th amendment of the US constitution, as well as other federal and State amendments.Gay marriage has technically been legal since the passage of the 14th amendment, try and grasp that concept. It's not faith based law. You continue to claim states can have laws on the books that grant people of separate race, sexual preference, etc different rights based on who they want to marry. Read Loving, even watch the movie - there are enough facts in the movie for you to grasp. Your religion can refuse to marry two people. It doesn't stop those people from going to a different church, city hall, or a justice of the peace and getting married. Focus, Emily, grasp the concept it's not 1st amendment. Lawyers aren't controlling the costs, you are. You are claiming LGBT needs to have different laws written for them than heterosexuals need, and that simply is not true. Laws are in place. You don't seem to comprehend that at this point, it would take a constitutional amendment. 38 states are NOT going to vote for an amendment to take away a civil right - because they know it would be challenged any way, and it would never pass, just as passing an amendment to not allow interracial couples to be able to marry would not pass. THINK.

Not to worry Sneekin
By proving spiritual healing works effectively to restore people's natural default status, that will solve both problems.

Once people get that spiritual healing is natural, and what is going on when people change orientation, that will solve both the faith based issue of how much is a choice spiritually and also resolve the conflicts between people over Natural rights and laws so we can reach a consensus by free choice!

Very good, I agree research to prove how orientation and spiritual healing works will solve multiple levels of conflicts and will result in consensus the right way by free choice not forced by govt.

 

[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"
It's by principle alone, on the left this principle is called separation of church and state, on the right it's called separation of federal jurisdiction from states rights
4. Yes it's about Political Beliefs.

The belief about LGBT orientation/identity/relations are NOT proven scientifically but remain FAITH based. It's a Spiritual belief if this is natural or unnatural, if it's a choice of behavior that can change or NOT a choice.

The Belief that marriage is a Constitutional right or a practice under free exercise of religion that belongs to people or states is a Political Belief.

While I agree with you that you and anyone has the right to your belief it is a civil natural right for gay couples equally, not everyone shares this belief. Since it is faith based, it's only fair not to impose it by govt against beliefs of others.

So Sneekin and also Faun
I propose to you to pass a Constitutional Amendment on recognizing Political Beliefs such as right to marriage that is faith based, so it is Constitutional and passed by consent of people and States; and in order to make it fair where people of all political beliefs support its passage, include ALL political beliefs such as the right to life protected at conception which is also faith based.

Then write this Amendment that allows free choice to recognize and fund political beliefs separately by party so it does not impose on taxpayers of other beliefs. That would be fair to people of all beliefs.

5. Lastly I'm sorry you don't get that your belief in marriage as a right is a belief. Neither do Christians who believe right to life is natural from conception.

There are many non-Christians and even gay people and gay couples who do NOT believe in gay marriage through govt!

So this matter of preference of belief is spiritual and or political, it's a free choice, it's not about discriminating against a class of people because even that is faith based, not proven, and a choice to believe it's a born trait or why or how and whether it can change.

I believe it is spiritual, so beliefs are protected individually and can't be mandated by govt.

I believe we can form a consensus on law that respects free choice ie is not mandated through govt without consent of the public

The same way you Obama and others choose to recognize and support gay marriage, it should remain a free choice. No law forced you or Obama, you chose freely. So please recognize the same right of ALL Americans to choose freely.

PS as for cost of lawyers
This is also in violation of my Constitutional beliefs in due process and the right to petition for redress of grievances. Why should mistakes made in passing unconstitutional laws such as DOMA and ACA be charged to the contesters to correct the problem? The cost and burden should be on the proponents.

I have proposed to sue members and leaders of the Democratic Party to cover the legal costs as part of the damage.

I could not find a lawyer wiling to take this on before because the work exceeds the ability to bankroll it on comtigency. But Sneekin that is part of the tactics of legal abuse and monopoly. If lawyers control the cost and the game, no laws can be challenged without resources.

So these are not inalienable rights, but depending on political lobbying and or money.

Now however, there may be enough support to demand Democrats responsible for passing biased faith based laws and rulings pay the costs of correcting these to be Constitutional instead of imposing that cost on people who argued it wasn't Constitutional to begin with.

One person suggested having a vote in Congress on whether a bill is Constitutional or not Before proposing and voting on it through the House and Senate, so we agree up front does this require an Amendment to expand and authorize federal government to make such a law. That would save time and money fighting over states rights and religious freedom or bias in laws.

Sorry if you don't see this as compelling interest. But I see the bigger pattern of political beliefs that should be managed by conflict resolution and consensus on laws that reflects the will and consent of all people regardless of creed and which side they're on

I believe that is natural law, Constitutional duty and Government Ethics. See www.ethics-commission.net

Good luck, Emily, passing an amendment claiming marriage is faith based. I'll check back in 8 years and see how you are doing with that. Wait - it will fail.
My belief that marriage is a right is a fact. Courts ruled last year - did you forget already?
You are trying to legislate religion into the constitution, and I resent that. Your constant babble about having to vote on civil and constitutional rights is tiring. Move on.
To address abortion (I believe it was answered to you several times, and I refused to repeat it, but....)
You claims regarding abortion are all religious based. Roe v Wade was decided on the same ground as Obergefell, Lawrence v Texas, etc. RIght to privacy, and equal rights for all. You can be pro-life (in fact, those that believe in abortion are pro-life as well), pro-abortion, or whatever. Your church can be against it. It still does not give anyone the right to be refused, at least under certain scenarios. Learn the difference, read the decisions, and make sure you understand what the foundation was for the court decisions. You've been wrong on everything I've seen. And no, there is still not a large number of gays that are against themselves and / or friends being able to get married. Most of the people you refer to are against the courts forcing religions to perform SSM, which would be patently ILLEGAL. Again, you simply could have read Windsor, Obergefell, and had your eyes opened.

 

[Sneekin]

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"
It's by principle alone, on the left this principle is called separation of church and state, on the right it's called separation of federal jurisdiction from states rights
4. Yes it's about Political Beliefs.

The belief about LGBT orientation/identity/relations are NOT proven scientifically but remain FAITH based. It's a Spiritual belief if this is natural or unnatural, if it's a choice of behavior that can change or NOT a choice.

The Belief that marriage is a Constitutional right or a practice under free exercise of religion that belongs to people or states is a Political Belief.

While I agree with you that you and anyone has the right to your belief it is a civil natural right for gay couples equally, not everyone shares this belief. Since it is faith based, it's only fair not to impose it by govt against beliefs of others.

So Sneekin and also Faun
I propose to you to pass a Constitutional Amendment on recognizing Political Beliefs such as right to marriage that is faith based, so it is Constitutional and passed by consent of people and States; and in order to make it fair where people of all political beliefs support its passage, include ALL political beliefs such as the right to life protected at conception which is also faith based.

Then write this Amendment that allows free choice to recognize and fund political beliefs separately by party so it does not impose on taxpayers of other beliefs. That would be fair to people of all beliefs.

5. Lastly I'm sorry you don't get that your belief in marriage as a right is a belief. Neither do Christians who believe right to life is natural from conception.

There are many non-Christians and even gay people and gay couples who do NOT believe in gay marriage through govt!

So this matter of preference of belief is spiritual and or political, it's a free choice, it's not about discriminating against a class of people because even that is faith based, not proven, and a choice to believe it's a born trait or why or how and whether it can change.

I believe it is spiritual, so beliefs are protected individually and can't be mandated by govt.

I believe we can form a consensus on law that respects free choice ie is not mandated through govt without consent of the public

The same way you Obama and others choose to recognize and support gay marriage, it should remain a free choice. No law forced you or Obama, you chose freely. So please recognize the same right of ALL Americans to choose freely.

PS as for cost of lawyers
This is also in violation of my Constitutional beliefs in due process and the right to petition for redress of grievances. Why should mistakes made in passing unconstitutional laws such as DOMA and ACA be charged to the contesters to correct the problem? The cost and burden should be on the proponents.

I have proposed to sue members and leaders of the Democratic Party to cover the legal costs as part of the damage.

I could not find a lawyer wiling to take this on before because the work exceeds the ability to bankroll it on comtigency. But Sneekin that is part of the tactics of legal abuse and monopoly. If lawyers control the cost and the game, no laws can be challenged without resources.

So these are not inalienable rights, but depending on political lobbying and or money.

Now however, there may be enough support to demand Democrats responsible for passing biased faith based laws and rulings pay the costs of correcting these to be Constitutional instead of imposing that cost on people who argued it wasn't Constitutional to begin with.

One person suggested having a vote in Congress on whether a bill is Constitutional or not Before proposing and voting on it through the House and Senate, so we agree up front does this require an Amendment to expand and authorize federal government to make such a law. That would save time and money fighting over states rights and religious freedom or bias in laws.

Sorry if you don't see this as compelling interest. But I see the bigger pattern of political beliefs that should be managed by conflict resolution and consensus on laws that reflects the will and consent of all people regardless of creed and which side they're on

I believe that is natural law, Constitutional duty and Government Ethics. See www.ethics-commission.net

There are a handful of gays that don't believe in it. They, like you, fail to grasp the concept that civil marriage doesn't fall under separation of church and state. Already been ruled on. Read the Iowa Supreme Court decision that repeatedly upheld lower court rulings in Iowa that SSM on it's face, because it violates the 14th amendment of the US constitution, as well as other federal and State amendments.Gay marriage has technically been legal since the passage of the 14th amendment, try and grasp that concept. It's not faith based law. You continue to claim states can have laws on the books that grant people of separate race, sexual preference, etc different rights based on who they want to marry. Read Loving, even watch the movie - there are enough facts in the movie for you to grasp. Your religion can refuse to marry two people. It doesn't stop those people from going to a different church, city hall, or a justice of the peace and getting married. Focus, Emily, grasp the concept it's not 1st amendment. Lawyers aren't controlling the costs, you are. You are claiming LGBT needs to have different laws written for them than heterosexuals need, and that simply is not true. Laws are in place. You don't seem to comprehend that at this point, it would take a constitutional amendment. 38 states are NOT going to vote for an amendment to take away a civil right - because they know it would be challenged any way, and it would never pass, just as passing an amendment to not allow interracial couples to be able to marry would not pass. THINK.

Not to worry Sneekin
By proving spiritual healing works effectively to restore people's natural default status, that will solve both problems.

Once people get that spiritual healing is natural, and what is going on when people change orientation, that will solve both the faith based issue of how much is a choice spiritually and also resolve the conflicts between people over Natural rights and laws so we can reach a consensus by free choice!

Very good, I agree research to prove how orientation and spiritual healing works will solve multiple levels of conflicts and will result in consensus the right way by free choice not forced by govt.

People don't change their orientation. They suppress it. When confronted with choice, 99 percent stop suppression. Try reading the medical journals. It blows up any thoughts about "spiritual healing" changing someone's sexual orientation. Even those practicing conversion therapy these days will tell you they don't change the orientation, they show one how to suppress their attraction and feelings. READ.

 

[LuckyDuck]

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

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

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

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

Uhh, the last I checked, marriage was actually about.......(drum roll).......love.
There are plenty of people who fall in love, want to live with each other and cement their bond with a marriage, yet don't want children and thus use contraception to avoid the pesky business of having to put up with kids in their lives.
As for the Supreme Court's ruling, it was decided on the basis of "equal protection," not, separate but equal.
Gays and lesbians aren't harming you, me, or anyone else. Their getting married does not destroy marriage, as you, me and other heterosexuals are perfectly free to marry women.
All you have to do, is go on about your life and focus on your job, family and next vacation you may be planning on.

 

[Faun]

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!

State sanctioned marriage in the U.S. has always been a civil contract and has always been called "marriage." We don't call marriage something else for certain folks because others find it offensive. Equal protection under the law supersedes Christians' feelings.

 

[Faun]

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?

Not true. Prayer is religious, state sanctioned marriage is not. Folks who desire a religious ceremony are free to do so according to the laws of their faith. There is no religious aspect to the state issuing marriage licenses so it has nothing to do with religious freedoms.