Gay marriage is not a constitutional right

[Faun]

I said, "civil marriage is already secular," which it is. You responded by stating not everyone believes that; which is what I pointed out is delusional and that no one is bound by such delusional beliefs.

And again... the topic is about same-sex marriage, not crosses.... not praying... not religion. It's a pity you're incapable of separating them from the topic.

See ^ Faun you did it again.
You assume that anyone who objects to marriage laws implemented in that manner is "delusional."

Sorry but I disagree.

I know LOTS of independents, even a liberal lesbian friend who said the same thing I am saying in "sticking with CIVIL UNIONS,"
Libertarians, Constitutionalists, both Christian and secular, who do NOT believe that those marriage laws are unbiased and "secular"
but STILL are imposing beliefs by applying to gay couples which NOT ALL PEOPLE BELIEVE IN.

And they AGREE that sticking to Civil Unions would solve the problem.
Some are still reluctant to remove ALL marriage and ONLY have Civil Unions for ALL people.

But more of the people who agree to "remove ALL marriage" are the Libertarians or similar approaches.

So if that is the common denominator, sure, I will go with that.

If you want to say ALL these diverse people are "delusional" for not agreeing to change civil marriage laws to include gay couples,
that is YOUR assumption, but I found these people are actually MORE objective and MORE rational who
could LET GO OF BELIEFS and agree to stick to what is neutral and secular.

You claim to let go, but if you have to paint anyone who believes otherwise as "delusional'
that means you are still attaching bias to this and projecting onto people of different beliefs.

Unlike YOU, I am willing to include ALL people in how laws are written state by state.
If you want to exclude and demonize people as being "delusional" that's not unbiased
but you are already discriminating against others you don't understand or agree with.

sorry but an all-inclusive democratic process cannot be run by accusing people of being delusional
just for having different religious biases.

I think if we are having THIS much trouble communicating,
I could see removing marriage ALL TOGETHER and separating ALL social benefits
by party so only LIKEMINDED people write their own terms and conditions for funding
their own benefits collectively, and leave other people out, if both groups are just going
to ACCUSE the other of being delusional or mentally ill. people already think that
of liberals, so again, I see that you think the same of them. At least it's equal.

but since two wrongs don't make it right, this still doesn't solve the problems.

I would highly recommend just separating social programs by political party,
so nobody has to deal with others they consider "delusional."

I said no such thing. Stop misrepresenting what I say. I said anyone who believes civil marriage is not secular is delusional.

I did not say that anyone who objects to marriage laws implemented in that manner is "delusional."

And we're not doing away with marriage altogether because some folks find it objectionable any more than we're doing away with marriage because some folks object to interfaith marriage; or any more than we're doing away with marriage because some folks object to interracial marriages.

You've failed to articulate any reasonable argument to reject same-sex sex marriage or doing away with marriage entirely for all.

YES I just pointed out the reasons.
that it is discriminating against people of either belief
to impose one way or another.

Whichever side of marriage laws govt takes, it leaves the other discriminated against.
People on both sides feel the other creed is establishing a bias in law and govt
unless all the related issues are resolved.

So it is in govt and public best interest either to require
* consensus on laws including how they are written funded and enforced
* or separation of policies such as by state or by party if needed to solve the conflicts.

Thanks Faun

As you've been told before, even though you can't understand it, same-sex marriage is not being imposed upon anyone who doesn't want it.

I answered this before, several times.

I compared it with atheists removing a cross from public property that "isn't imposing Christianity on the atheist"

If an atheist can remove references to a Cross or God or Bible, THAT ISN'T FORCING ANYONE TO CHANGE WHO DOESN'T WANT TO,
then so can people similarly remove references to "marriage."

Same principle. Faun

In the case of a one cross that was ordered removed or pay fines per day,
the case was settled by transferring the property to a private institution.

So I argue the same can be done "if people in each state can't agree to terms"
they can agree to transfer marriage to private institutions or even parties,
"if all they can agree to is civil unions through the state."

Sure Faun it is possible for people to agre e to the term marriage or civil marriage.
And it's also possible for people to quit removing references to:
Crosses
Prayers
God
Jesus
creation
etc.
from public institutions and agree to be tolerant and inclusive of everyone's beliefs
and right to express them equally as LGBT expressions and practices,
and NOT just the ones that fit their political beliefs and agenda.

Or that's discrimination by creed.

Your analogies are not the same. Crosses are banned from public property because such a display can be construed as state established religion, which is strictly forbidden according to the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

That is in no way analogous to same-sex marriage, which in no way, violates the U.S. Constitution.

You're again grasping at straws because you have no rational defense of your position.

 

[emilynghiem]

See ^ Faun you did it again.
You assume that anyone who objects to marriage laws implemented in that manner is "delusional."

Sorry but I disagree.

I know LOTS of independents, even a liberal lesbian friend who said the same thing I am saying in "sticking with CIVIL UNIONS,"
Libertarians, Constitutionalists, both Christian and secular, who do NOT believe that those marriage laws are unbiased and "secular"
but STILL are imposing beliefs by applying to gay couples which NOT ALL PEOPLE BELIEVE IN.

And they AGREE that sticking to Civil Unions would solve the problem.
Some are still reluctant to remove ALL marriage and ONLY have Civil Unions for ALL people.

But more of the people who agree to "remove ALL marriage" are the Libertarians or similar approaches.

So if that is the common denominator, sure, I will go with that.

If you want to say ALL these diverse people are "delusional" for not agreeing to change civil marriage laws to include gay couples,
that is YOUR assumption, but I found these people are actually MORE objective and MORE rational who
could LET GO OF BELIEFS and agree to stick to what is neutral and secular.

You claim to let go, but if you have to paint anyone who believes otherwise as "delusional'
that means you are still attaching bias to this and projecting onto people of different beliefs.

Unlike YOU, I am willing to include ALL people in how laws are written state by state.
If you want to exclude and demonize people as being "delusional" that's not unbiased
but you are already discriminating against others you don't understand or agree with.

sorry but an all-inclusive democratic process cannot be run by accusing people of being delusional
just for having different religious biases.

I think if we are having THIS much trouble communicating,
I could see removing marriage ALL TOGETHER and separating ALL social benefits
by party so only LIKEMINDED people write their own terms and conditions for funding
their own benefits collectively, and leave other people out, if both groups are just going
to ACCUSE the other of being delusional or mentally ill. people already think that
of liberals, so again, I see that you think the same of them. At least it's equal.

but since two wrongs don't make it right, this still doesn't solve the problems.

I would highly recommend just separating social programs by political party,
so nobody has to deal with others they consider "delusional."

I said no such thing. Stop misrepresenting what I say. I said anyone who believes civil marriage is not secular is delusional.

I did not say that anyone who objects to marriage laws implemented in that manner is "delusional."

And we're not doing away with marriage altogether because some folks find it objectionable any more than we're doing away with marriage because some folks object to interfaith marriage; or any more than we're doing away with marriage because some folks object to interracial marriages.

You've failed to articulate any reasonable argument to reject same-sex sex marriage or doing away with marriage entirely for all.

YES I just pointed out the reasons.
that it is discriminating against people of either belief
to impose one way or another.

Whichever side of marriage laws govt takes, it leaves the other discriminated against.
People on both sides feel the other creed is establishing a bias in law and govt
unless all the related issues are resolved.

So it is in govt and public best interest either to require
* consensus on laws including how they are written funded and enforced
* or separation of policies such as by state or by party if needed to solve the conflicts.

Thanks Faun

As you've been told before, even though you can't understand it, same-sex marriage is not being imposed upon anyone who doesn't want it.

I answered this before, several times.

I compared it with atheists removing a cross from public property that "isn't imposing Christianity on the atheist"

If an atheist can remove references to a Cross or God or Bible, THAT ISN'T FORCING ANYONE TO CHANGE WHO DOESN'T WANT TO,
then so can people similarly remove references to "marriage."

Same principle. Faun

In the case of a one cross that was ordered removed or pay fines per day,
the case was settled by transferring the property to a private institution.

So I argue the same can be done "if people in each state can't agree to terms"
they can agree to transfer marriage to private institutions or even parties,
"if all they can agree to is civil unions through the state."

Sure Faun it is possible for people to agre e to the term marriage or civil marriage.
And it's also possible for people to quit removing references to:
Crosses
Prayers
God
Jesus
creation
etc.
from public institutions and agree to be tolerant and inclusive of everyone's beliefs
and right to express them equally as LGBT expressions and practices,
and NOT just the ones that fit their political beliefs and agenda.

Or that's discrimination by creed.

Your analogies are not the same. Crosses are banned from public property because such a display can be construed as state established religion, which is strictly forbidden according to the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

That is in no way analogous to same-sex marriage, which in no way, violates the U.S. Constitution.

You're again grasping at straws because you have no rational defense of your position.

????

Dear Faun
Yes, it does constitute an establishment of beliefs
if govt is abused to impose EITHER beliefs about marriage
as "traditional only" or as "including gay couples and gay marriage"
where other people dissent because they don't share those beliefs.

BOTH of those are biases in beliefs.

Sorry Faun Only if the public or people in a state AGREE
to the laws can you or I say it isn't biased in beliefs. So that's what I am seeking:
true inclusion, neutrality and equal representation of all people of all beliefs.

If one side objects because their beliefs or rights aren't represented equally,
that means there IS A BIAS, or else why would they be objecting.

You are the one discrediting one side's beliefs as "delusional."

I'm the only one in this discussion attempting to include ALL beliefs equally
and find a way that doesn't discriminate against one or the other.

I don't consider LGBT beliefs or orientation a "delusion" or "hallucination."

So don't blame bias on me when I am trying to be all inclusive
and you already excluded other people's beliefs as delusions!

Shame on you.

 

[emilynghiem]

Here Faun
here is a response I posted to someone else
who argued that homosexuality is NOT proven scientifically to be a born innate fixed condition
[and who APPEARS TO CORRELATE homosexuality and transgender identity with "mental health problems"]

====================================
The other author is Dr. Paul McHugh, one of the leading psychiatrists in the world. He was psychiatrist-in-chief at Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore from 1975 to 2001. These scientists reviewed hundreds of peer reviewed studies on sexual orientation and gender identity from the biological, psychological and social sciences. Their conclusions were as follows:.........................

the belief that sexual orientation is an innate, biologically fixed human property – that people are “born that way” – is not supported by scientific evidence.
The belief that gender identity is an innate, fixed human property independent of biological sex – so that a person might be a ‘man trapped in a woman’s body’ or ‘a woman trapped in a man’s body’ – is not supported by scientific evidence........................

Only a minority of children who express gender-atypical thoughts or behaviour will continue to do so into adolescence or adulthood...............

Non-heterosexual and transgender people have higher rates of mental health problems (anxiety, depression, suicide), as well as behavioral and social problems (substance abuse, intimate partner violence), than the general population. Discrimination alone does not account for the entire disparity............................... .............

The second bombshell was exploded by a top researcher for the American Psychological Association (APA), lesbian activist, Dr. Lisa Diamond, co-author-in-chief of ‘the APA Handbook’ of sexuality and psychology and one of the APA’s most respected members. She admitted that sexual orientation was “fluid” and not unchangeable. By doing so, Dr. Diamond confirmed that the myth that “homosexuals can’t change” is now a dead-end theory
===========================================================

Dear sec
Yes and no
1. studies on identical twins do not show correlation in orientation.
some studies were inflated to show higher than 50%, but it's definitely NOT 100% as a genetic cause would show
One source: Homosexuality Can it be Healed by Dr. Francis MacNutt
for interview of Judith MacNutt on 20 cases of homosexual clients healed by spiritual therapy
see: Interview - Francis & Judith MacNutt - Mastering Life

2. homosexual and transgender identity can still be attributed to factors in the WOMB.
studies on brains show a similarity between the brains of females and of gay males.
Even if not genetic, it could be a condition by birth and not someone's choice.

When I look at people who claim to be spiritual soulmates, is that something
either one of them chose? How they were incarnated as black or white, male or female?

3. my argument is to treat LGBT beliefs orientation and gender as SPIRITUALLY determined.
So this covers any and all beliefs equally, and does not discriminate against one or another.
No matter what someone believes, since both sides are faith based and neither proven nor disproven
by science, they remain free choice; and certain govt should never be abused to impose a faith-based bias
or force someone to change their beliefs. These should all be included equally, whether for or against gay marriage
or believing homosexuality is natural or unnatural, a choice of behavior or not, or it can or cannot change.

Some people can change, some cannot.
Some believe the change is merely reverting back to default natural status at birth, and not really changing orientation
So like someone's expression of identity as Muslim or Christian, atheist, liberal prochoice, or conservative prolife,
I believe in treating one's beliefs about LGBT as a CREED and not denying disparaging or harassing people regardless
what their views are, why, and if these change or not. Some people cannot help and cannot change how they believe.
And that goes for both sides!

 

[Faun]

I said no such thing. Stop misrepresenting what I say. I said anyone who believes civil marriage is not secular is delusional.

I did not say that anyone who objects to marriage laws implemented in that manner is "delusional."

And we're not doing away with marriage altogether because some folks find it objectionable any more than we're doing away with marriage because some folks object to interfaith marriage; or any more than we're doing away with marriage because some folks object to interracial marriages.

You've failed to articulate any reasonable argument to reject same-sex sex marriage or doing away with marriage entirely for all.

YES I just pointed out the reasons.
that it is discriminating against people of either belief
to impose one way or another.

Whichever side of marriage laws govt takes, it leaves the other discriminated against.
People on both sides feel the other creed is establishing a bias in law and govt
unless all the related issues are resolved.

So it is in govt and public best interest either to require
* consensus on laws including how they are written funded and enforced
* or separation of policies such as by state or by party if needed to solve the conflicts.

Thanks Faun

As you've been told before, even though you can't understand it, same-sex marriage is not being imposed upon anyone who doesn't want it.

I answered this before, several times.

I compared it with atheists removing a cross from public property that "isn't imposing Christianity on the atheist"

If an atheist can remove references to a Cross or God or Bible, THAT ISN'T FORCING ANYONE TO CHANGE WHO DOESN'T WANT TO,
then so can people similarly remove references to "marriage."

Same principle. Faun

In the case of a one cross that was ordered removed or pay fines per day,
the case was settled by transferring the property to a private institution.

So I argue the same can be done "if people in each state can't agree to terms"
they can agree to transfer marriage to private institutions or even parties,
"if all they can agree to is civil unions through the state."

Sure Faun it is possible for people to agre e to the term marriage or civil marriage.
And it's also possible for people to quit removing references to:
Crosses
Prayers
God
Jesus
creation
etc.
from public institutions and agree to be tolerant and inclusive of everyone's beliefs
and right to express them equally as LGBT expressions and practices,
and NOT just the ones that fit their political beliefs and agenda.

Or that's discrimination by creed.

Your analogies are not the same. Crosses are banned from public property because such a display can be construed as state established religion, which is strictly forbidden according to the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

That is in no way analogous to same-sex marriage, which in no way, violates the U.S. Constitution.

You're again grasping at straws because you have no rational defense of your position.

????

Dear Faun
Yes, it does constitute an establishment of beliefs
if govt is abused to impose EITHER beliefs about marriage
as "traditional only" or as "including gay couples and gay marriage"
where other people dissent because they don't share those beliefs.

BOTH of those are biases in beliefs.

Sorry Faun Only if the public or people in a state AGREE
to the laws can you or I say it isn't biased in beliefs. So that's what I am seeking:
true inclusion, neutrality and equal representation of all people of all beliefs.

If one side objects because their beliefs or rights aren't represented equally,
that means there IS A BIAS, or else why would they be objecting.

You are the one discrediting one side's beliefs as "delusional."

I'm the only one in this discussion attempting to include ALL beliefs equally
and find a way that doesn't discriminate against one or the other.

I don't consider LGBT beliefs or orientation a "delusion" or "hallucination."

So don't blame bias on me when I am trying to be all inclusive
and you already excluded other people's beliefs as delusions!

Shame on you.

And what is unconstitutional about the belief that gay people should be legally allowed to marry the person of their choice regardless of gender?

 

[emilynghiem]

YES I just pointed out the reasons.
that it is discriminating against people of either belief
to impose one way or another.

Whichever side of marriage laws govt takes, it leaves the other discriminated against.
People on both sides feel the other creed is establishing a bias in law and govt
unless all the related issues are resolved.

So it is in govt and public best interest either to require
* consensus on laws including how they are written funded and enforced
* or separation of policies such as by state or by party if needed to solve the conflicts.

Thanks Faun

As you've been told before, even though you can't understand it, same-sex marriage is not being imposed upon anyone who doesn't want it.

I answered this before, several times.

I compared it with atheists removing a cross from public property that "isn't imposing Christianity on the atheist"

If an atheist can remove references to a Cross or God or Bible, THAT ISN'T FORCING ANYONE TO CHANGE WHO DOESN'T WANT TO,
then so can people similarly remove references to "marriage."

Same principle. Faun

In the case of a one cross that was ordered removed or pay fines per day,
the case was settled by transferring the property to a private institution.

So I argue the same can be done "if people in each state can't agree to terms"
they can agree to transfer marriage to private institutions or even parties,
"if all they can agree to is civil unions through the state."

Sure Faun it is possible for people to agre e to the term marriage or civil marriage.
And it's also possible for people to quit removing references to:
Crosses
Prayers
God
Jesus
creation
etc.
from public institutions and agree to be tolerant and inclusive of everyone's beliefs
and right to express them equally as LGBT expressions and practices,
and NOT just the ones that fit their political beliefs and agenda.

Or that's discrimination by creed.

Your analogies are not the same. Crosses are banned from public property because such a display can be construed as state established religion, which is strictly forbidden according to the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

That is in no way analogous to same-sex marriage, which in no way, violates the U.S. Constitution.

You're again grasping at straws because you have no rational defense of your position.

????

Dear Faun
Yes, it does constitute an establishment of beliefs
if govt is abused to impose EITHER beliefs about marriage
as "traditional only" or as "including gay couples and gay marriage"
where other people dissent because they don't share those beliefs.

BOTH of those are biases in beliefs.

Sorry Faun Only if the public or people in a state AGREE
to the laws can you or I say it isn't biased in beliefs. So that's what I am seeking:
true inclusion, neutrality and equal representation of all people of all beliefs.

If one side objects because their beliefs or rights aren't represented equally,
that means there IS A BIAS, or else why would they be objecting.

You are the one discrediting one side's beliefs as "delusional."

I'm the only one in this discussion attempting to include ALL beliefs equally
and find a way that doesn't discriminate against one or the other.

I don't consider LGBT beliefs or orientation a "delusion" or "hallucination."

So don't blame bias on me when I am trying to be all inclusive
and you already excluded other people's beliefs as delusions!

Shame on you.

And what is unconstitutional about the belief that gay people should be legally allowed to marry the person of their choice regardless of gender?

That this belief can be practiced under free exercise of religion,
which govt can neither prohibit or establish, without endorsing it through govt laws that everyone is under (except as written and enforced by consent of the people where beliefs are involved)

So if either side believes a law isn't neutral enough but is biased one way or another,
that is grounds for revising it until it is neutral enough to represent the public.

Faun

 

[Faun]

Here Faun
here is a response I posted to someone else
who argued that homosexuality is NOT proven scientifically to be a born innate fixed condition
[and who APPEARS TO CORRELATE homosexuality and transgender identity with "mental health problems"]

====================================
The other author is Dr. Paul McHugh, one of the leading psychiatrists in the world. He was psychiatrist-in-chief at Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore from 1975 to 2001. These scientists reviewed hundreds of peer reviewed studies on sexual orientation and gender identity from the biological, psychological and social sciences. Their conclusions were as follows:.........................

the belief that sexual orientation is an innate, biologically fixed human property – that people are “born that way” – is not supported by scientific evidence.
The belief that gender identity is an innate, fixed human property independent of biological sex – so that a person might be a ‘man trapped in a woman’s body’ or ‘a woman trapped in a man’s body’ – is not supported by scientific evidence........................

Only a minority of children who express gender-atypical thoughts or behaviour will continue to do so into adolescence or adulthood...............

Non-heterosexual and transgender people have higher rates of mental health problems (anxiety, depression, suicide), as well as behavioral and social problems (substance abuse, intimate partner violence), than the general population. Discrimination alone does not account for the entire disparity............................... .............

The second bombshell was exploded by a top researcher for the American Psychological Association (APA), lesbian activist, Dr. Lisa Diamond, co-author-in-chief of ‘the APA Handbook’ of sexuality and psychology and one of the APA’s most respected members. She admitted that sexual orientation was “fluid” and not unchangeable. By doing so, Dr. Diamond confirmed that the myth that “homosexuals can’t change” is now a dead-end theory
===========================================================

Dear sec
Yes and no
1. studies on identical twins do not show correlation in orientation.
some studies were inflated to show higher than 50%, but it's definitely NOT 100% as a genetic cause would show
One source: Homosexuality Can it be Healed by Dr. Francis MacNutt
for interview of Judith MacNutt on 20 cases of homosexual clients healed by spiritual therapy
see: Interview - Francis & Judith MacNutt - Mastering Life

2. homosexual and transgender identity can still be attributed to factors in the WOMB.
studies on brains show a similarity between the brains of females and of gay males.
Even if not genetic, it could be a condition by birth and not someone's choice.

When I look at people who claim to be spiritual soulmates, is that something
either one of them chose? How they were incarnated as black or white, male or female?

3. my argument is to treat LGBT beliefs orientation and gender as SPIRITUALLY determined.
So this covers any and all beliefs equally, and does not discriminate against one or another.
No matter what someone believes, since both sides are faith based and neither proven nor disproven
by science, they remain free choice; and certain govt should never be abused to impose a faith-based bias
or force someone to change their beliefs. These should all be included equally, whether for or against gay marriage
or believing homosexuality is natural or unnatural, a choice of behavior or not, or it can or cannot change.

Some people can change, some cannot.
Some believe the change is merely reverting back to default natural status at birth, and not really changing orientation
So like someone's expression of identity as Muslim or Christian, atheist, liberal prochoice, or conservative prolife,
I believe in treating one's beliefs about LGBT as a CREED and not denying disparaging or harassing people regardless
what their views are, why, and if these change or not. Some people cannot help and cannot change how they believe.
And that goes for both sides!

That's not an argument I ever made or care about.

Next diatribe...?

 

[Faun]

As you've been told before, even though you can't understand it, same-sex marriage is not being imposed upon anyone who doesn't want it.

I answered this before, several times.

I compared it with atheists removing a cross from public property that "isn't imposing Christianity on the atheist"

If an atheist can remove references to a Cross or God or Bible, THAT ISN'T FORCING ANYONE TO CHANGE WHO DOESN'T WANT TO,
then so can people similarly remove references to "marriage."

Same principle. Faun

In the case of a one cross that was ordered removed or pay fines per day,
the case was settled by transferring the property to a private institution.

So I argue the same can be done "if people in each state can't agree to terms"
they can agree to transfer marriage to private institutions or even parties,
"if all they can agree to is civil unions through the state."

Sure Faun it is possible for people to agre e to the term marriage or civil marriage.
And it's also possible for people to quit removing references to:
Crosses
Prayers
God
Jesus
creation
etc.
from public institutions and agree to be tolerant and inclusive of everyone's beliefs
and right to express them equally as LGBT expressions and practices,
and NOT just the ones that fit their political beliefs and agenda.

Or that's discrimination by creed.

Your analogies are not the same. Crosses are banned from public property because such a display can be construed as state established religion, which is strictly forbidden according to the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

That is in no way analogous to same-sex marriage, which in no way, violates the U.S. Constitution.

You're again grasping at straws because you have no rational defense of your position.

????

Dear Faun
Yes, it does constitute an establishment of beliefs
if govt is abused to impose EITHER beliefs about marriage
as "traditional only" or as "including gay couples and gay marriage"
where other people dissent because they don't share those beliefs.

BOTH of those are biases in beliefs.

Sorry Faun Only if the public or people in a state AGREE
to the laws can you or I say it isn't biased in beliefs. So that's what I am seeking:
true inclusion, neutrality and equal representation of all people of all beliefs.

If one side objects because their beliefs or rights aren't represented equally,
that means there IS A BIAS, or else why would they be objecting.

You are the one discrediting one side's beliefs as "delusional."

I'm the only one in this discussion attempting to include ALL beliefs equally
and find a way that doesn't discriminate against one or the other.

I don't consider LGBT beliefs or orientation a "delusion" or "hallucination."

So don't blame bias on me when I am trying to be all inclusive
and you already excluded other people's beliefs as delusions!

Shame on you.

And what is unconstitutional about the belief that gay people should be legally allowed to marry the person of their choice regardless of gender?

That this belief can be practiced under free exercise of religion,
which govt can neither prohibit or establish, without endorsing it through govt laws that everyone is under (except as written and enforced by consent of the people where beliefs are involved)

So if either side believes a law isn't neutral enough but is biased one way or another,
that is grounds for revising it until it is neutral enough to represent the public.

Faun

No one made the claim that same-sex marriage can be practiced under the freedom to exercise religion. This has been explained to you repeatedly and you just don't get it.

Seems you have nothing in terms of same-sex marriage being unconstitutional.

 

[rightwinger]

Your faith does not have to accept same sex marriage. You just can't force the government to not accept it based solely on your religion

You have to demonstrate a legitimate harm to society in order to get government to forbid it. Same sex marriage opponents have been unable to do that to the satisfaction f the courts.

Nope rightwinger
1. It's not about forbidding or banning it,
But keeping marriage beliefs in private
2. The harm is EITHER sides beliefs being established or endorsed by law against the Other beliefs without free choice and consent
3. The harm is discrimination by creed pitting one set of beliefs against the other instead of keeping both in private

if states agree to include gay marriage as the solution fine, but if enough people in that state do not consent and believe it should be civil unions for everyone and keep marriage private, i would suggest either separating by party or possibly resolving the conflict by agreeing to tolerate God, prayer, creation, spiritual healing prayer, and all other faith based expression in public institutions if LGBT beliefs and creeds are going to be endorsed by government as protected. Then all other creeds should have equal freedom to be exercised instead of removed from public institutions too!

Not as long as the government provides special benefits to married couples that they don't provide to singles. In that case they must treat all marriages equally.
Our Constitution supersedes the claims of the states. The state must provide equal protection of the law. They must also recognize contracts written in other states
Nobody is discriminating against your beliefs. If you object to gay marriage....don't do it
However, you can't force the government to enforce your beliefs.

Dear rightwinger
YES, that's what I'm talking about.
Separating ALL social benefits from beliefs about marriage, too!
Examples:
1. either AGREE to manage all of these benefits for Civil Unions (or if states agree to call them Civil Marriages but I think this gets into conflict)
as SECULAR financial and legal agreements APART from any conditions or beliefs about the RELATIONSHIP between the two parties in a contract.
Beneficiaries can also be secularized/neutral, and have no restrictions on relationship if the people of the state agree to those terms.
2. or if people CANNOT agree on social terms,
separate ALL such benefits (as we already know people do NOT agree on health care managed through state or federal govt or through free market chioces)
BY PARTY and/or by TAX FORM
where people can CHOOSE whether to go through their state, party or federal program
and not affect taxpayers who CHOOSE a different system.

This would solve SEVERAL problems at once include different beliefs on
* abortion and birth control
* drug use and who pays for the health problems if people choose to use drugs, alcohol, tobacco etc.
* prison policies on death penalty, mentally ill, even Spiritual Healing that has been used to cure not only mental and physical illness but even criminal illness,
and restorative justice approaches whether religious or nonprofit or secular
etc.

By separating funding for prisons, that money alone saved by restorative justice measures would help save
resources in order to afford sustainable universal health care

You are close.....

People can CHOOSE to marry a same sex partner or not

you might not like it.....But what business is it of yours?

Dear rightwinger I'm saying to keep it out of govt if you want free choice.
Keep the language secular where everyone agrees to it.

I've found more common agreement to keep Civil Unions in govt
and manage contracts that way and NOT specify any conditions on
the social relationships between the partners who form a legal contract or domestic partnership.

If brother and sister, or two neighbors want to run a household together and share contractual
duties or legal guardianship, that has ZERO to do with if they are having romantic relations
much less if they have to be husband and wife.

And if people don't agree on benefits policies, those are social values also,
that can be separated by party if people cannot agree on state or federal laws for all people in that state or across the nation.

Not to worry rightwinger I already gave up trying to explain it.

I am happy enough to find the other people who get it,
and maybe that's enough to separate our beliefs from govt
and leave everyone else who believe in dominating one political belief "for all people"
every time majority rule decides an election. I don't believe in that,
but if you and others do, I cannot change your minds for you.

All I can do is sue or petition to separate my taxes and my representation
from people like you who believe in violating each other's by majority rule
and claim that gives you license to impose your beliefs, political or otherwise,
onto others who don't agree. and call them delusional, just like people
say that about liberals and try to censor them for it.

I believe this impositional bullying is a DANGER to the very liberal progressive
ideals I believe in regarding free choice, and protecting beliefs and creeds from
discrimination, exclusion, coercion, bullying, imposition, penalty, and deprivation of equal protection rights and liberties.

I understand you and others believe in protecting rights by establishing them through govt,
but I believe this still requires consensus where political beliefs differ.

I don't believe in forcing or imposing them without consent, or it's not
valid authority of law if not all people consent to that policy. I believe
in matters of belief, all objections and conflicts should be resolved to
ensure equal representation and protection of interests, regardless of creed.

But my standards are higher than even very intelligent articulate people like
you and Faun can handle.

so it's not fair to expect you to understand this and change your minds
if you are set on seeing opponents with other beliefs as "delusional."

That's why opponents of liberal beliefs say the same thing, give up
and just resort to voting liberals out of office.

You are danger to your own party principles and you don't even see it.
Where's the inclusion, the free choice.
Both sides have resorted to painting the other as delusional,
and that's where I have to leave you to your own devices if that's the best I can expect from you.

Thanks for your best efforts!

Just know that people say the same thing and think
liberals are "mentally ill" or "deluded" in depending on govt for rights when to them
that is a false and dangerous premise.

Or they want "everyone else" to pay for their programs
so when I advocate to separate tracks so taxpayers have a choice,
they say "liberals will never support that because they want OTHER people
to pay for their programs".

That makes no sense to me. If I and other Democrats believe in sustainable
health care, we should be able to fund it ourselves. And if it's not affordable,
something is wrong with the terms and conditions, and we'd have to change
them such as requiring all people get help for criminal illness abuse or addiction
if that's what driving costs up that could otherwise pay for health care.

I hope it's finally time to separate social programs and funding by party,
Because I'm sick of fighting back and forth when all parties have enough
resources to manage their own policies and not interfere with each other!!!

Government is in the marriage business...

They certify it and make it legal
They provide tax breaks
They provide spousal protections for survivorship and medical care
They supervise the dissolution of marriage

What do you want them to stop doing?

 

[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.

Wrong again, Emily. No one is imposing same-sex marriage upon anyone. Everyone is free to marry the person of their choice within legal restrictions, such as age restrictions and consent. No Christian who is opposed to same-sex marriage is forced to marry someone of the same sex.

Regarding the remainder of your post about prayer ... Again, that's a different issue and has nothing to do with same-sex marriage.

Dear Faun what's being imposed is the faith based belief that "marriage" should be the same for gay couple as traditional couples. That is still faith based.

When crosses are on public property these are not "forcing" a belief on anyone.

But crosses have been removed on Principle alone.
And in one case, land was transferred to private entity to preserve the cross on a structure as is to resolve the conflict. There is no need to transfer marriage, it's been written into state laws already, since the very beginnings of our country. What are you going to do with the millions already married? You can't really believe we are going to issue out new civil union certificates. You aren't going to change my civil union to a marriage, nor can you legally change my marriage to a civil union. You also have to address divorces - which is secular. Another case where even though the priest/pastor/rabbi/monk/etc deems you to be divorced in the eyes of your religion, it does not mean you are divorced legally. What do we call it? Civil Dissolution? There are laws currently in place, where if two parents are married, and there is offspring, the father is presumptively named the father, unless another person is named. If no name is mentioned, then it is the father. In some states, if they child was conceived during the marriage, even though there was a divorce, the divorced father is presumptively the father, even if the divorce decree was grounded on adultery of the wife. I know Iowa was that way for years. But it ONLY references marriage, not common law marriage, not civil unions, domestic partners, etc. That indeed is going to be a problem, a huge impact to the states, and huge costs. There are also huge costs incurred at the federal levels, mainly in the tax arena.

So here, marriage can be transfered to private institutions to remove it from govt.

And only keep civil unions for everyone so it's secular neutral and fair.

When the 10 commandments, cross, or any other religious symbol (form ANY religion) requires me to remove my hat, put my hand over my heart, kneel down in front, salute, or anything else, it most certainly is an interference, a forcing of belief onto me. This happened in a public school I attended. We are a republic, you are viewing the US as a democracy, which we are not. It's not majority rule. If there was only a Menorah at city hall, I'd protest as well if any other religion was refused. Could you reference where the land was transferred from the city/state/federal land to a private entity?

I'm still waiting for you to answer how two same sex people getting married in any way shape or form interferes with a religion. The only way it could interfere is if the government set down rules for the religions. Obergefell, Windsor, even the 14th amendment and 1st amendment does not direct anything at a religion; in fact, it only impacts those 1138 legal decisions. I do find it a violation of my personal beliefs if I'm forced to be in a civil union because of where I got married at (JP) or who I married (SS). And you still haven't addressed the fact that there will have to be literally double the number of marriage laws on the books (one for SSM and one for heterosexual), but probably even more. How are you going to handle interracial marriage? There's a religion (one of the fundamentalist Christian sects) in KY that will not allow interracial couples to attend, and refuses to allow interracial couples to get married. The first amendment allows this to occur. How will you handle that in a civil union? Or will there be different laws? Some churches allow SSM, some don't.

In fact, I refuse to have my marriage renamed because of who I married, or where I went to get married.

 

[emilynghiem]

Nope rightwinger
1. It's not about forbidding or banning it,
But keeping marriage beliefs in private
2. The harm is EITHER sides beliefs being established or endorsed by law against the Other beliefs without free choice and consent
3. The harm is discrimination by creed pitting one set of beliefs against the other instead of keeping both in private

if states agree to include gay marriage as the solution fine, but if enough people in that state do not consent and believe it should be civil unions for everyone and keep marriage private, i would suggest either separating by party or possibly resolving the conflict by agreeing to tolerate God, prayer, creation, spiritual healing prayer, and all other faith based expression in public institutions if LGBT beliefs and creeds are going to be endorsed by government as protected. Then all other creeds should have equal freedom to be exercised instead of removed from public institutions too!

Not as long as the government provides special benefits to married couples that they don't provide to singles. In that case they must treat all marriages equally.
Our Constitution supersedes the claims of the states. The state must provide equal protection of the law. They must also recognize contracts written in other states
Nobody is discriminating against your beliefs. If you object to gay marriage....don't do it
However, you can't force the government to enforce your beliefs.

Dear rightwinger
YES, that's what I'm talking about.
Separating ALL social benefits from beliefs about marriage, too!
Examples:
1. either AGREE to manage all of these benefits for Civil Unions (or if states agree to call them Civil Marriages but I think this gets into conflict)
as SECULAR financial and legal agreements APART from any conditions or beliefs about the RELATIONSHIP between the two parties in a contract.
Beneficiaries can also be secularized/neutral, and have no restrictions on relationship if the people of the state agree to those terms.
2. or if people CANNOT agree on social terms,
separate ALL such benefits (as we already know people do NOT agree on health care managed through state or federal govt or through free market chioces)
BY PARTY and/or by TAX FORM
where people can CHOOSE whether to go through their state, party or federal program
and not affect taxpayers who CHOOSE a different system.

This would solve SEVERAL problems at once include different beliefs on
* abortion and birth control
* drug use and who pays for the health problems if people choose to use drugs, alcohol, tobacco etc.
* prison policies on death penalty, mentally ill, even Spiritual Healing that has been used to cure not only mental and physical illness but even criminal illness,
and restorative justice approaches whether religious or nonprofit or secular
etc.

By separating funding for prisons, that money alone saved by restorative justice measures would help save
resources in order to afford sustainable universal health care

You are close.....

People can CHOOSE to marry a same sex partner or not

you might not like it.....But what business is it of yours?

Dear rightwinger I'm saying to keep it out of govt if you want free choice.
Keep the language secular where everyone agrees to it.

I've found more common agreement to keep Civil Unions in govt
and manage contracts that way and NOT specify any conditions on
the social relationships between the partners who form a legal contract or domestic partnership.

If brother and sister, or two neighbors want to run a household together and share contractual
duties or legal guardianship, that has ZERO to do with if they are having romantic relations
much less if they have to be husband and wife.

And if people don't agree on benefits policies, those are social values also,
that can be separated by party if people cannot agree on state or federal laws for all people in that state or across the nation.

Not to worry rightwinger I already gave up trying to explain it.

I am happy enough to find the other people who get it,
and maybe that's enough to separate our beliefs from govt
and leave everyone else who believe in dominating one political belief "for all people"
every time majority rule decides an election. I don't believe in that,
but if you and others do, I cannot change your minds for you.

All I can do is sue or petition to separate my taxes and my representation
from people like you who believe in violating each other's by majority rule
and claim that gives you license to impose your beliefs, political or otherwise,
onto others who don't agree. and call them delusional, just like people
say that about liberals and try to censor them for it.

I believe this impositional bullying is a DANGER to the very liberal progressive
ideals I believe in regarding free choice, and protecting beliefs and creeds from
discrimination, exclusion, coercion, bullying, imposition, penalty, and deprivation of equal protection rights and liberties.

I understand you and others believe in protecting rights by establishing them through govt,
but I believe this still requires consensus where political beliefs differ.

I don't believe in forcing or imposing them without consent, or it's not
valid authority of law if not all people consent to that policy. I believe
in matters of belief, all objections and conflicts should be resolved to
ensure equal representation and protection of interests, regardless of creed.

But my standards are higher than even very intelligent articulate people like
you and Faun can handle.

so it's not fair to expect you to understand this and change your minds
if you are set on seeing opponents with other beliefs as "delusional."

That's why opponents of liberal beliefs say the same thing, give up
and just resort to voting liberals out of office.

You are danger to your own party principles and you don't even see it.
Where's the inclusion, the free choice.
Both sides have resorted to painting the other as delusional,
and that's where I have to leave you to your own devices if that's the best I can expect from you.

Thanks for your best efforts!

Just know that people say the same thing and think
liberals are "mentally ill" or "deluded" in depending on govt for rights when to them
that is a false and dangerous premise.

Or they want "everyone else" to pay for their programs
so when I advocate to separate tracks so taxpayers have a choice,
they say "liberals will never support that because they want OTHER people
to pay for their programs".

That makes no sense to me. If I and other Democrats believe in sustainable
health care, we should be able to fund it ourselves. And if it's not affordable,
something is wrong with the terms and conditions, and we'd have to change
them such as requiring all people get help for criminal illness abuse or addiction
if that's what driving costs up that could otherwise pay for health care.

I hope it's finally time to separate social programs and funding by party,
Because I'm sick of fighting back and forth when all parties have enough
resources to manage their own policies and not interfere with each other!!!

Government is in the marriage business...

They certify it and make it legal
They provide tax breaks
They provide spousal protections for survivorship and medical care
They supervise the dissolution of marriage

What do you want them to stop doing?

Dear rightwinger
I'm saying if people per state do not agree on terms of marriage,
because of conflicting beliefs, then either revise the laws
such as neutral terms of civil unions if civil marriage isn't neutral enough
and/or even separating terms of benefits by party so people can
choose what they believe in, without imposing on equal choice beliefs and rights of others.

Either agree on a state policy so nobody is arguing about discrimination
or violation of beliefs, ie mediating and resolving all conflicts so laws are neutral,
and/or separate policies for funding and managing benefits if people cannot agree
due to their beliefs.

 

[emilynghiem]

I answered this before, several times.

I compared it with atheists removing a cross from public property that "isn't imposing Christianity on the atheist"

If an atheist can remove references to a Cross or God or Bible, THAT ISN'T FORCING ANYONE TO CHANGE WHO DOESN'T WANT TO,
then so can people similarly remove references to "marriage."

Same principle. Faun

In the case of a one cross that was ordered removed or pay fines per day,
the case was settled by transferring the property to a private institution.

So I argue the same can be done "if people in each state can't agree to terms"
they can agree to transfer marriage to private institutions or even parties,
"if all they can agree to is civil unions through the state."

Sure Faun it is possible for people to agre e to the term marriage or civil marriage.
And it's also possible for people to quit removing references to:
Crosses
Prayers
God
Jesus
creation
etc.
from public institutions and agree to be tolerant and inclusive of everyone's beliefs
and right to express them equally as LGBT expressions and practices,
and NOT just the ones that fit their political beliefs and agenda.

Or that's discrimination by creed.

Your analogies are not the same. Crosses are banned from public property because such a display can be construed as state established religion, which is strictly forbidden according to the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

That is in no way analogous to same-sex marriage, which in no way, violates the U.S. Constitution.

You're again grasping at straws because you have no rational defense of your position.

????

Dear Faun
Yes, it does constitute an establishment of beliefs
if govt is abused to impose EITHER beliefs about marriage
as "traditional only" or as "including gay couples and gay marriage"
where other people dissent because they don't share those beliefs.

BOTH of those are biases in beliefs.

Sorry Faun Only if the public or people in a state AGREE
to the laws can you or I say it isn't biased in beliefs. So that's what I am seeking:
true inclusion, neutrality and equal representation of all people of all beliefs.

If one side objects because their beliefs or rights aren't represented equally,
that means there IS A BIAS, or else why would they be objecting.

You are the one discrediting one side's beliefs as "delusional."

I'm the only one in this discussion attempting to include ALL beliefs equally
and find a way that doesn't discriminate against one or the other.

I don't consider LGBT beliefs or orientation a "delusion" or "hallucination."

So don't blame bias on me when I am trying to be all inclusive
and you already excluded other people's beliefs as delusions!

Shame on you.

And what is unconstitutional about the belief that gay people should be legally allowed to marry the person of their choice regardless of gender?

That this belief can be practiced under free exercise of religion,
which govt can neither prohibit or establish, without endorsing it through govt laws that everyone is under (except as written and enforced by consent of the people where beliefs are involved)

So if either side believes a law isn't neutral enough but is biased one way or another,
that is grounds for revising it until it is neutral enough to represent the public.

Faun

No one made the claim that same-sex marriage can be practiced under the freedom to exercise religion. This has been explained to you repeatedly and you just don't get it.

Seems you have nothing in terms of same-sex marriage being unconstitutional.

???

Dear Faun I don't know if you are living in a box or you just don't care or acknowledge the beliefs of others.
Am I really the only person you know making these arguments:
1. about states rights
2. about civil unions instead of marriage through govt
3. about right to marriage being a political belief that not all people agree to apply to gay couples?

REALLY?

Maybe it's because I'm in Texas.
And in Houston.

I have TONS of prolife Christian friends who do NOT believe abortion is a choice
and do NOT believe in the govt endorsing gay marriage as natural.

I have stated these over and over.

If you are just citing the court case in Obergefell,
well I know more people who contest that just like you would contest a court ruling endorsing slavery as legal property laws.

Sorry, but it's leaving out the consent and beliefs of other people in making that ruling.
(the most I can interpret it to include the gist of it,
is by religious freedom of course people have equal
rights to marriage, and that's why it's not govt jurisidiction to decide)

You don't count the beliefs of these other people.
It's not your fault, I think you truly do not see any violation occurring
so you think it must be delusional.

It's the principle, that govt should not impose ANY beliefs about marriage
that should remain the right of the people to CHOOSE.

The dissenters do NOT believe Govt has the authority to declare marriage
rights beliefs or practices one way or another.

That's the issue.

I think it's so fundamental that you are missing it.
You keep wanting to argue specific points,
when it's the whole thing that is objected to.

Sorry if I cannot explain what each and every person is arguing
who objects to this.

If you need to hear all the reasons and arguments (as each person
says it differently) give me time and I will collect and list these for you.

In general they don't believe and don't consent.
So I'm trying to find where they would agree.

Here is one way people are arguing Obergefell is unconstitutional overreaching by the judiciary:
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/420934/reclaiming-rule-law-after-obergefell-bradley-c-s-watson

And with the 4-5 decision, similar to the 4-5 ruling to approve ACA mandates
also contested as unconstitutional,
this seems to me to represent two sides of political beliefs,
that are split fairly evenly, and just the majority BELIEF
is being endorsed and enforced by govt. when both sides
represent EQUAL BELIEFS, thus I would argue why not
allow both choices, separate tracks and let people of
BOTH beliefs each have their separate way to treat them equally.

 

[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.

States are already free to abandon civil marriages for all within their respective borders. If states want to offer only civil unions for everyone, there would be no legal issue with that. But that was not the case prior to Obergefell. At that time, states decided marriage would be available; but some states decided only certain people would have the right to marry the person of their choice.

Emily / Faun, let me raise the following problems/points/issues, Emily, you are hard pressed to be able to answer this one, as marriage is currently at the state level, recognized interstate, and civil unions are not.....

Again, since civil unions are being proposed / if included for only gays or those married outside of church, then that would be separate but equal, which in and of itself is patently illegal. If just dropping marriage, then there is a huge cost involved, as any state that would have civil unions already on the books would literally have to rewrite each and every law, to mirror the existing marriage laws. This would then have to be voted on, at great cost. One would also have to check the legality of it, as there are numerous laws at the federal level that hinge on marriage, and not civil unions. Does that mean if your state is the only state wishing to eliminate marriage and replace it, your state would fit the bill? Your state would still have to deal with marriage in two aspects anyway - each state recognizes the other 49 states in regards to marriage. If I am married in State A, and your State B has only civil unions, you still have to have in full force and effect, laws in place to recognize my incoming marriage. If you have just a civil union in your state B, somehow it would have to magically convert to a marriage in my state if you move here - which doesn't address the fact that I may still have my civil union laws on the books - in which case, there is a whole other can of worms opened. In fact, your "marriage by another name" may be completely invalidated in another state - which currently cannot happen. Marriage laws interstate allow me to have marriage age at 14 in my state, 18 in your state, 21 in yet another, but the 14 year old who is married would have a valid marriage in all states. Simply not true in the case of civil unions. Who would pay?

Dear Sneekin I see where you misunderstand me.

I'm saying ALL civil unions be treated the same for both traditional marriage and gay marriage, not for gay couples only. Since of course that isn't fair, then just recognize civil unions for ALL.

Who would pay: both marriage proponents who want to keep either gay marriage or traditional marriage and benefits on either a state or federal level. All people who want a solution and inclusion would figure out the best way to separate this and then deal with the costs.

I suggest keeping civil unions or domestic partnerships as the neutral contract on the secular got level. And if people can't agree on marriage or social benefits then separate that by state or by party which can still go national and not affect the other systems by state or by other parties that can still go national with separate terms

The cost effectiveness of separation comes in separating ALL other areas of incompatible political beliefs so we solve several issues with one solution. And where it costs too much to separate, parties could make deals such as accepting marriage in govt if prayers and creation can be in schools and textbooks. Or agreeing on solutions to faith based beliefs in LGBT, global warming, or spiritual healing that can be proven by science.

Separate prolife taxpayers from prochoice where one pays for planned parenthood and the other pays for the nurturing network.
Separate funding for death penalty or alternative life imprisonment and rehab.
Separate funding for health care through federal mandates or free market.

Add to that credits to taxpayers for restitution from unauthorized abuses and expenditures of public dollars, such as assessing the cost of ACA handouts and unconstitutional mandates and refunding those as credits back to taxpayers to invest in the cost of reforming govt.

That's what I suggest. Have party reps , especially libertarians and vet party and Constitutionalists who believe in separating social programs from federal govt, research the least intrusive way of streamlining separating and reforming this so it meets Constitutional standards and incurs the least cost. If it really is the best solution, and a!reset everyone's concerns for equal representation of interests, the majority across different parties would sign on.

That's why I would include paying reimbursement to taxpayers for trillions in bad govt misspending as part of the plan. Each party has its laundry list of who owes what to taxpayers. Those credits can be assessed and applied toward creating jobs in reform to correct the root problems and stop the waste.

This seriously won't work. Here's a great example - when I was in high school, Visiting Nurses (which eventually became Planned Parenthood around here) did counseling, exams, checks, issued birth control pills, etc (abortion wasn't legal yet in the state, had to go one state over). I was friends with several girls that utilized the service and took them there for their quarterly visits and checks. Why? Because their parent's refused, and were against BC pills. What taxpayers would pay? The parents wouldn't. My parents wouldn't (I'm male, and have no need for any service there). After being older and married, one of us is pro PP (me), the spouse is against PP. Joint taxes. How do we both pay and not pay for it? Same would apply for death penalty/life in prison/rehab.

Bad example for health care - since no one I know that doesn't want to sign up for the ACA simply doesn't. They have never been fined. Mandates and free market both have problems. If it's not mandated, you run into the current situation, where people simply use the ER as their personal physicians. Can't pay? Oh well, the hospital writes it off. Free market? The young won't buy it (they never have, they never will). So In either case, I end up paying more through higher fees from the hospital/medical corp, or even more through free market, where my premiums go up astronomically. The year the ACA went into effect, my insurance was decreased by 50 percent. In the years since, it's gone up a grand total of 20-25 dollars a month. So, just a few dollars a month. Before that, it was going up 20-30 dollars every two weeks. There's also a single payer option. Before people jump on me, and claim people are dying in Canada, and coming down here, I need to point out that it all depends on where you live. I've got friends in small towns in CN, who wait a couple of weeks for most procedures. Those same procedures where I'm at now in the US, where the population is 1/3 of a million, with University hospitals within 50 miles in two different directions, along with 8 private ones, the average wait time is 2-3 months of waiting.

Novel thought here, if you want to save money on healthcare, then go after the hospitals and insurance companies. The hospitals double and triple bill (they've done this 3 different times with various procedures done on my dad), submitting them to Medicare and his private insurance. He also has the ability to use the VA, but his costs are actually higher on prescriptions and appliances.

 

[rightwinger]

Not as long as the government provides special benefits to married couples that they don't provide to singles. In that case they must treat all marriages equally.
Our Constitution supersedes the claims of the states. The state must provide equal protection of the law. They must also recognize contracts written in other states
Nobody is discriminating against your beliefs. If you object to gay marriage....don't do it
However, you can't force the government to enforce your beliefs.

Dear rightwinger
YES, that's what I'm talking about.
Separating ALL social benefits from beliefs about marriage, too!
Examples:
1. either AGREE to manage all of these benefits for Civil Unions (or if states agree to call them Civil Marriages but I think this gets into conflict)
as SECULAR financial and legal agreements APART from any conditions or beliefs about the RELATIONSHIP between the two parties in a contract.
Beneficiaries can also be secularized/neutral, and have no restrictions on relationship if the people of the state agree to those terms.
2. or if people CANNOT agree on social terms,
separate ALL such benefits (as we already know people do NOT agree on health care managed through state or federal govt or through free market chioces)
BY PARTY and/or by TAX FORM
where people can CHOOSE whether to go through their state, party or federal program
and not affect taxpayers who CHOOSE a different system.

This would solve SEVERAL problems at once include different beliefs on
* abortion and birth control
* drug use and who pays for the health problems if people choose to use drugs, alcohol, tobacco etc.
* prison policies on death penalty, mentally ill, even Spiritual Healing that has been used to cure not only mental and physical illness but even criminal illness,
and restorative justice approaches whether religious or nonprofit or secular
etc.

By separating funding for prisons, that money alone saved by restorative justice measures would help save
resources in order to afford sustainable universal health care

You are close.....

People can CHOOSE to marry a same sex partner or not

you might not like it.....But what business is it of yours?

Dear rightwinger I'm saying to keep it out of govt if you want free choice.
Keep the language secular where everyone agrees to it.

I've found more common agreement to keep Civil Unions in govt
and manage contracts that way and NOT specify any conditions on
the social relationships between the partners who form a legal contract or domestic partnership.

If brother and sister, or two neighbors want to run a household together and share contractual
duties or legal guardianship, that has ZERO to do with if they are having romantic relations
much less if they have to be husband and wife.

And if people don't agree on benefits policies, those are social values also,
that can be separated by party if people cannot agree on state or federal laws for all people in that state or across the nation.

Not to worry rightwinger I already gave up trying to explain it.

I am happy enough to find the other people who get it,
and maybe that's enough to separate our beliefs from govt
and leave everyone else who believe in dominating one political belief "for all people"
every time majority rule decides an election. I don't believe in that,
but if you and others do, I cannot change your minds for you.

All I can do is sue or petition to separate my taxes and my representation
from people like you who believe in violating each other's by majority rule
and claim that gives you license to impose your beliefs, political or otherwise,
onto others who don't agree. and call them delusional, just like people
say that about liberals and try to censor them for it.

I believe this impositional bullying is a DANGER to the very liberal progressive
ideals I believe in regarding free choice, and protecting beliefs and creeds from
discrimination, exclusion, coercion, bullying, imposition, penalty, and deprivation of equal protection rights and liberties.

I understand you and others believe in protecting rights by establishing them through govt,
but I believe this still requires consensus where political beliefs differ.

I don't believe in forcing or imposing them without consent, or it's not
valid authority of law if not all people consent to that policy. I believe
in matters of belief, all objections and conflicts should be resolved to
ensure equal representation and protection of interests, regardless of creed.

But my standards are higher than even very intelligent articulate people like
you and Faun can handle.

so it's not fair to expect you to understand this and change your minds
if you are set on seeing opponents with other beliefs as "delusional."

That's why opponents of liberal beliefs say the same thing, give up
and just resort to voting liberals out of office.

You are danger to your own party principles and you don't even see it.
Where's the inclusion, the free choice.
Both sides have resorted to painting the other as delusional,
and that's where I have to leave you to your own devices if that's the best I can expect from you.

Thanks for your best efforts!

Just know that people say the same thing and think
liberals are "mentally ill" or "deluded" in depending on govt for rights when to them
that is a false and dangerous premise.

Or they want "everyone else" to pay for their programs
so when I advocate to separate tracks so taxpayers have a choice,
they say "liberals will never support that because they want OTHER people
to pay for their programs".

That makes no sense to me. If I and other Democrats believe in sustainable
health care, we should be able to fund it ourselves. And if it's not affordable,
something is wrong with the terms and conditions, and we'd have to change
them such as requiring all people get help for criminal illness abuse or addiction
if that's what driving costs up that could otherwise pay for health care.

I hope it's finally time to separate social programs and funding by party,
Because I'm sick of fighting back and forth when all parties have enough
resources to manage their own policies and not interfere with each other!!!

Government is in the marriage business...

They certify it and make it legal
They provide tax breaks
They provide spousal protections for survivorship and medical care
They supervise the dissolution of marriage

What do you want them to stop doing?

Dear rightwinger
I'm saying if people per state do not agree on terms of marriage,
because of conflicting beliefs, then either revise the laws
such as neutral terms of civil unions if civil marriage isn't neutral enough
and/or even separating terms of benefits by party so people can
choose what they believe in, without imposing on equal choice beliefs and rights of others.

Either agree on a state policy so nobody is arguing about discrimination
or violation of beliefs, ie mediating and resolving all conflicts so laws are neutral,
and/or separate policies for funding and managing benefits if people cannot agree
due to their beliefs.

The Supreme Court has already ruled that as unconstitutional. Equal protection of our laws

How do you resolve married gay people moving between the states?
They are married or they are not

 

[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
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.

Wrong again, Emily. No one is imposing same-sex marriage upon anyone. Everyone is free to marry the person of their choice within legal restrictions, such as age restrictions and consent. No Christian who is opposed to same-sex marriage is forced to marry someone of the same sex.

Regarding the remainder of your post about prayer ... Again, that's a different issue and has nothing to do with same-sex marriage.

Dear Faun what's being imposed is the faith based belief that "marriage" should be the same for gay couple as traditional couples. That is still faith based.

When crosses are on public property these are not "forcing" a belief on anyone.

But crosses have been removed on Principle alone.
And in one case, land was transferred to private entity to preserve the cross on a structure as is to resolve the conflict. There is no need to transfer marriage, it's been written into state laws already, since the very beginnings of our country. What are you going to do with the millions already married? You can't really believe we are going to issue out new civil union certificates. You aren't going to change my civil union to a marriage, nor can you legally change my marriage to a civil union. You also have to address divorces - which is secular. Another case where even though the priest/pastor/rabbi/monk/etc deems you to be divorced in the eyes of your religion, it does not mean you are divorced legally. What do we call it? Civil Dissolution? There are laws currently in place, where if two parents are married, and there is offspring, the father is presumptively named the father, unless another person is named. If no name is mentioned, then it is the father. In some states, if they child was conceived during the marriage, even though there was a divorce, the divorced father is presumptively the father, even if the divorce decree was grounded on adultery of the wife. I know Iowa was that way for years. But it ONLY references marriage, not common law marriage, not civil unions, domestic partners, etc. That indeed is going to be a problem, a huge impact to the states, and huge costs. There are also huge costs incurred at the federal levels, mainly in the tax arena.

So here, marriage can be transfered to private institutions to remove it from govt.

And only keep civil unions for everyone so it's secular neutral and fair.

When the 10 commandments, cross, or any other religious symbol (form ANY religion) requires me to remove my hat, put my hand over my heart, kneel down in front, salute, or anything else, it most certainly is an interference, a forcing of belief onto me. This happened in a public school I attended. We are a republic, you are viewing the US as a democracy, which we are not. It's not majority rule. If there was only a Menorah at city hall, I'd protest as well if any other religion was refused. Could you reference where the land was transferred from the city/state/federal land to a private entity?

I'm still waiting for you to answer how two same sex people getting married in any way shape or form interferes with a religion. The only way it could interfere is if the government set down rules for the religions. Obergefell, Windsor, even the 14th amendment and 1st amendment does not direct anything at a religion; in fact, it only impacts those 1138 legal decisions. I do find it a violation of my personal beliefs if I'm forced to be in a civil union because of where I got married at (JP) or who I married (SS). And you still haven't addressed the fact that there will have to be literally double the number of marriage laws on the books (one for SSM and one for heterosexual), but probably even more. How are you going to handle interracial marriage? There's a religion (one of the fundamentalist Christian sects) in KY that will not allow interracial couples to attend, and refuses to allow interracial couples to get married. The first amendment allows this to occur. How will you handle that in a civil union? Or will there be different laws? Some churches allow SSM, some don't.

In fact, I refuse to have my marriage renamed because of who I married, or where I went to get married.

Sneekin
I'd say you can keep your marriage but people who do not want their state endorsing gay marriage can petition to separate marriage under two tracks and not have anything to do with endorsing something they don't believe in. Same with prolife separating funding from prochoice.

Both can call it marriage but stay separate from each other, especially if it's the terms of benefits policy they don't agree with, which is also the problem with health care. So why not separate tracks by party and let each have their own already. Why not solve a slew of conflicts all together by separating platforms by party per state, and let taxpayers pay for what they vote for to include.

Here's the case of the cross preserved by selling the land to private ownership
Soledad Cross sale to private group complete

Here's one about a group across the country suing to remove crosses on public school memorial based on principle alone:
A Religious Memorial Honoring a Middle School Teacher is Altered After Atheists Point Out Constitutional Problems

so if these are going to be removed, so can groups who don't believe in gay marriage, ask that all marriage be removed, in order to be fair.

 

[Faun]

Not as long as the government provides special benefits to married couples that they don't provide to singles. In that case they must treat all marriages equally.
Our Constitution supersedes the claims of the states. The state must provide equal protection of the law. They must also recognize contracts written in other states
Nobody is discriminating against your beliefs. If you object to gay marriage....don't do it
However, you can't force the government to enforce your beliefs.

Dear rightwinger
YES, that's what I'm talking about.
Separating ALL social benefits from beliefs about marriage, too!
Examples:
1. either AGREE to manage all of these benefits for Civil Unions (or if states agree to call them Civil Marriages but I think this gets into conflict)
as SECULAR financial and legal agreements APART from any conditions or beliefs about the RELATIONSHIP between the two parties in a contract.
Beneficiaries can also be secularized/neutral, and have no restrictions on relationship if the people of the state agree to those terms.
2. or if people CANNOT agree on social terms,
separate ALL such benefits (as we already know people do NOT agree on health care managed through state or federal govt or through free market chioces)
BY PARTY and/or by TAX FORM
where people can CHOOSE whether to go through their state, party or federal program
and not affect taxpayers who CHOOSE a different system.

This would solve SEVERAL problems at once include different beliefs on
* abortion and birth control
* drug use and who pays for the health problems if people choose to use drugs, alcohol, tobacco etc.
* prison policies on death penalty, mentally ill, even Spiritual Healing that has been used to cure not only mental and physical illness but even criminal illness,
and restorative justice approaches whether religious or nonprofit or secular
etc.

By separating funding for prisons, that money alone saved by restorative justice measures would help save
resources in order to afford sustainable universal health care

You are close.....

People can CHOOSE to marry a same sex partner or not

you might not like it.....But what business is it of yours?

Dear rightwinger I'm saying to keep it out of govt if you want free choice.
Keep the language secular where everyone agrees to it.

I've found more common agreement to keep Civil Unions in govt
and manage contracts that way and NOT specify any conditions on
the social relationships between the partners who form a legal contract or domestic partnership.

If brother and sister, or two neighbors want to run a household together and share contractual
duties or legal guardianship, that has ZERO to do with if they are having romantic relations
much less if they have to be husband and wife.

And if people don't agree on benefits policies, those are social values also,
that can be separated by party if people cannot agree on state or federal laws for all people in that state or across the nation.

Not to worry rightwinger I already gave up trying to explain it.

I am happy enough to find the other people who get it,
and maybe that's enough to separate our beliefs from govt
and leave everyone else who believe in dominating one political belief "for all people"
every time majority rule decides an election. I don't believe in that,
but if you and others do, I cannot change your minds for you.

All I can do is sue or petition to separate my taxes and my representation
from people like you who believe in violating each other's by majority rule
and claim that gives you license to impose your beliefs, political or otherwise,
onto others who don't agree. and call them delusional, just like people
say that about liberals and try to censor them for it.

I believe this impositional bullying is a DANGER to the very liberal progressive
ideals I believe in regarding free choice, and protecting beliefs and creeds from
discrimination, exclusion, coercion, bullying, imposition, penalty, and deprivation of equal protection rights and liberties.

I understand you and others believe in protecting rights by establishing them through govt,
but I believe this still requires consensus where political beliefs differ.

I don't believe in forcing or imposing them without consent, or it's not
valid authority of law if not all people consent to that policy. I believe
in matters of belief, all objections and conflicts should be resolved to
ensure equal representation and protection of interests, regardless of creed.

But my standards are higher than even very intelligent articulate people like
you and Faun can handle.

so it's not fair to expect you to understand this and change your minds
if you are set on seeing opponents with other beliefs as "delusional."

That's why opponents of liberal beliefs say the same thing, give up
and just resort to voting liberals out of office.

You are danger to your own party principles and you don't even see it.
Where's the inclusion, the free choice.
Both sides have resorted to painting the other as delusional,
and that's where I have to leave you to your own devices if that's the best I can expect from you.

Thanks for your best efforts!

Just know that people say the same thing and think
liberals are "mentally ill" or "deluded" in depending on govt for rights when to them
that is a false and dangerous premise.

Or they want "everyone else" to pay for their programs
so when I advocate to separate tracks so taxpayers have a choice,
they say "liberals will never support that because they want OTHER people
to pay for their programs".

That makes no sense to me. If I and other Democrats believe in sustainable
health care, we should be able to fund it ourselves. And if it's not affordable,
something is wrong with the terms and conditions, and we'd have to change
them such as requiring all people get help for criminal illness abuse or addiction
if that's what driving costs up that could otherwise pay for health care.

I hope it's finally time to separate social programs and funding by party,
Because I'm sick of fighting back and forth when all parties have enough
resources to manage their own policies and not interfere with each other!!!

Government is in the marriage business...

They certify it and make it legal
They provide tax breaks
They provide spousal protections for survivorship and medical care
They supervise the dissolution of marriage

What do you want them to stop doing?

Dear rightwinger
I'm saying if people per state do not agree on terms of marriage,
because of conflicting beliefs, then either revise the laws
such as neutral terms of civil unions if civil marriage isn't neutral enough
and/or even separating terms of benefits by party so people can
choose what they believe in, without imposing on equal choice beliefs and rights of others.

Either agree on a state policy so nobody is arguing about discrimination
or violation of beliefs, ie mediating and resolving all conflicts so laws are neutral,
and/or separate policies for funding and managing benefits if people cannot agree
due to their beliefs.

We don't make laws based on peoples' feelings or religious objections. If we did, capital punishment would be unconstitutional, pork would be banned, cotton/wool blends would be punishable, etc...

 

[Sneekin]

Not as long as the government provides special benefits to married couples that they don't provide to singles. In that case they must treat all marriages equally.
Our Constitution supersedes the claims of the states. The state must provide equal protection of the law. They must also recognize contracts written in other states
Nobody is discriminating against your beliefs. If you object to gay marriage....don't do it
However, you can't force the government to enforce your beliefs.

Dear rightwinger
YES, that's what I'm talking about.
Separating ALL social benefits from beliefs about marriage, too!
Examples:
1. either AGREE to manage all of these benefits for Civil Unions (or if states agree to call them Civil Marriages but I think this gets into conflict)
as SECULAR financial and legal agreements APART from any conditions or beliefs about the RELATIONSHIP between the two parties in a contract.
Beneficiaries can also be secularized/neutral, and have no restrictions on relationship if the people of the state agree to those terms.
2. or if people CANNOT agree on social terms,
separate ALL such benefits (as we already know people do NOT agree on health care managed through state or federal govt or through free market chioces)
BY PARTY and/or by TAX FORM
where people can CHOOSE whether to go through their state, party or federal program
and not affect taxpayers who CHOOSE a different system.

This would solve SEVERAL problems at once include different beliefs on
* abortion and birth control
* drug use and who pays for the health problems if people choose to use drugs, alcohol, tobacco etc.
* prison policies on death penalty, mentally ill, even Spiritual Healing that has been used to cure not only mental and physical illness but even criminal illness,
and restorative justice approaches whether religious or nonprofit or secular
etc.

By separating funding for prisons, that money alone saved by restorative justice measures would help save
resources in order to afford sustainable universal health care

You are close.....

People can CHOOSE to marry a same sex partner or not

you might not like it.....But what business is it of yours?

Dear rightwinger I'm saying to keep it out of govt if you want free choice.
Keep the language secular where everyone agrees to it.

I've found more common agreement to keep Civil Unions in govt
and manage contracts that way and NOT specify any conditions on
the social relationships between the partners who form a legal contract or domestic partnership.

If brother and sister, or two neighbors want to run a household together and share contractual
duties or legal guardianship, that has ZERO to do with if they are having romantic relations
much less if they have to be husband and wife.

And if people don't agree on benefits policies, those are social values also,
that can be separated by party if people cannot agree on state or federal laws for all people in that state or across the nation.

Not to worry rightwinger I already gave up trying to explain it.

I am happy enough to find the other people who get it,
and maybe that's enough to separate our beliefs from govt
and leave everyone else who believe in dominating one political belief "for all people"
every time majority rule decides an election. I don't believe in that,
but if you and others do, I cannot change your minds for you.

All I can do is sue or petition to separate my taxes and my representation
from people like you who believe in violating each other's by majority rule
and claim that gives you license to impose your beliefs, political or otherwise,
onto others who don't agree. and call them delusional, just like people
say that about liberals and try to censor them for it.

I believe this impositional bullying is a DANGER to the very liberal progressive
ideals I believe in regarding free choice, and protecting beliefs and creeds from
discrimination, exclusion, coercion, bullying, imposition, penalty, and deprivation of equal protection rights and liberties.

I understand you and others believe in protecting rights by establishing them through govt,
but I believe this still requires consensus where political beliefs differ.

I don't believe in forcing or imposing them without consent, or it's not
valid authority of law if not all people consent to that policy. I believe
in matters of belief, all objections and conflicts should be resolved to
ensure equal representation and protection of interests, regardless of creed.

But my standards are higher than even very intelligent articulate people like
you and Faun can handle.

so it's not fair to expect you to understand this and change your minds
if you are set on seeing opponents with other beliefs as "delusional."

That's why opponents of liberal beliefs say the same thing, give up
and just resort to voting liberals out of office.

You are danger to your own party principles and you don't even see it.
Where's the inclusion, the free choice.
Both sides have resorted to painting the other as delusional,
and that's where I have to leave you to your own devices if that's the best I can expect from you.

Thanks for your best efforts!

Just know that people say the same thing and think
liberals are "mentally ill" or "deluded" in depending on govt for rights when to them
that is a false and dangerous premise.

Or they want "everyone else" to pay for their programs
so when I advocate to separate tracks so taxpayers have a choice,
they say "liberals will never support that because they want OTHER people
to pay for their programs".

That makes no sense to me. If I and other Democrats believe in sustainable
health care, we should be able to fund it ourselves. And if it's not affordable,
something is wrong with the terms and conditions, and we'd have to change
them such as requiring all people get help for criminal illness abuse or addiction
if that's what driving costs up that could otherwise pay for health care.

I hope it's finally time to separate social programs and funding by party,
Because I'm sick of fighting back and forth when all parties have enough
resources to manage their own policies and not interfere with each other!!!

Government is in the marriage business...

They certify it and make it legal
They provide tax breaks
They provide spousal protections for survivorship and medical care
They supervise the dissolution of marriage

What do you want them to stop doing?

Dear rightwinger
I'm saying if people per state do not agree on terms of marriage,
because of conflicting beliefs, then either revise the laws
such as neutral terms of civil unions if civil marriage isn't neutral enough
and/or even separating terms of benefits by party so people can
choose what they believe in, without imposing on equal choice beliefs and rights of others.

Either agree on a state policy so nobody is arguing about discrimination
or violation of beliefs, ie mediating and resolving all conflicts so laws are neutral,
and/or separate policies for funding and managing benefits if people cannot agree
due to their beliefs.

But you can't break them out by party! I'm an independent, I vote on the issues. I may be "right wing" for some candidates, "left wing" for others. So that option won't work for anyone.

I'm still waiting for the answer of how anyone is imposing on equal choice beliefs, and rights of others. No one against SSM has been forced to have one. If you know different, please name names. You are free to believe, I am free to practice. You are not free to tell me what I can and cannot practice in regards to religion - again - if my religion recognizes say - only SSM - then it's still going to have to be called a marriage, and not a civil union. And the same people whining about it will still whine about it - they are doing it now.

 

[emilynghiem]

Dear rightwinger
YES, that's what I'm talking about.
Separating ALL social benefits from beliefs about marriage, too!
Examples:
1. either AGREE to manage all of these benefits for Civil Unions (or if states agree to call them Civil Marriages but I think this gets into conflict)
as SECULAR financial and legal agreements APART from any conditions or beliefs about the RELATIONSHIP between the two parties in a contract.
Beneficiaries can also be secularized/neutral, and have no restrictions on relationship if the people of the state agree to those terms.
2. or if people CANNOT agree on social terms,
separate ALL such benefits (as we already know people do NOT agree on health care managed through state or federal govt or through free market chioces)
BY PARTY and/or by TAX FORM
where people can CHOOSE whether to go through their state, party or federal program
and not affect taxpayers who CHOOSE a different system.

This would solve SEVERAL problems at once include different beliefs on
* abortion and birth control
* drug use and who pays for the health problems if people choose to use drugs, alcohol, tobacco etc.
* prison policies on death penalty, mentally ill, even Spiritual Healing that has been used to cure not only mental and physical illness but even criminal illness,
and restorative justice approaches whether religious or nonprofit or secular
etc.

By separating funding for prisons, that money alone saved by restorative justice measures would help save
resources in order to afford sustainable universal health care

You are close.....

People can CHOOSE to marry a same sex partner or not

you might not like it.....But what business is it of yours?

Dear rightwinger I'm saying to keep it out of govt if you want free choice.
Keep the language secular where everyone agrees to it.

I've found more common agreement to keep Civil Unions in govt
and manage contracts that way and NOT specify any conditions on
the social relationships between the partners who form a legal contract or domestic partnership.

If brother and sister, or two neighbors want to run a household together and share contractual
duties or legal guardianship, that has ZERO to do with if they are having romantic relations
much less if they have to be husband and wife.

And if people don't agree on benefits policies, those are social values also,
that can be separated by party if people cannot agree on state or federal laws for all people in that state or across the nation.

Not to worry rightwinger I already gave up trying to explain it.

I am happy enough to find the other people who get it,
and maybe that's enough to separate our beliefs from govt
and leave everyone else who believe in dominating one political belief "for all people"
every time majority rule decides an election. I don't believe in that,
but if you and others do, I cannot change your minds for you.

All I can do is sue or petition to separate my taxes and my representation
from people like you who believe in violating each other's by majority rule
and claim that gives you license to impose your beliefs, political or otherwise,
onto others who don't agree. and call them delusional, just like people
say that about liberals and try to censor them for it.

I believe this impositional bullying is a DANGER to the very liberal progressive
ideals I believe in regarding free choice, and protecting beliefs and creeds from
discrimination, exclusion, coercion, bullying, imposition, penalty, and deprivation of equal protection rights and liberties.

I understand you and others believe in protecting rights by establishing them through govt,
but I believe this still requires consensus where political beliefs differ.

I don't believe in forcing or imposing them without consent, or it's not
valid authority of law if not all people consent to that policy. I believe
in matters of belief, all objections and conflicts should be resolved to
ensure equal representation and protection of interests, regardless of creed.

But my standards are higher than even very intelligent articulate people like
you and Faun can handle.

so it's not fair to expect you to understand this and change your minds
if you are set on seeing opponents with other beliefs as "delusional."

That's why opponents of liberal beliefs say the same thing, give up
and just resort to voting liberals out of office.

You are danger to your own party principles and you don't even see it.
Where's the inclusion, the free choice.
Both sides have resorted to painting the other as delusional,
and that's where I have to leave you to your own devices if that's the best I can expect from you.

Thanks for your best efforts!

Just know that people say the same thing and think
liberals are "mentally ill" or "deluded" in depending on govt for rights when to them
that is a false and dangerous premise.

Or they want "everyone else" to pay for their programs
so when I advocate to separate tracks so taxpayers have a choice,
they say "liberals will never support that because they want OTHER people
to pay for their programs".

That makes no sense to me. If I and other Democrats believe in sustainable
health care, we should be able to fund it ourselves. And if it's not affordable,
something is wrong with the terms and conditions, and we'd have to change
them such as requiring all people get help for criminal illness abuse or addiction
if that's what driving costs up that could otherwise pay for health care.

I hope it's finally time to separate social programs and funding by party,
Because I'm sick of fighting back and forth when all parties have enough
resources to manage their own policies and not interfere with each other!!!

Government is in the marriage business...

They certify it and make it legal
They provide tax breaks
They provide spousal protections for survivorship and medical care
They supervise the dissolution of marriage

What do you want them to stop doing?

Dear rightwinger
I'm saying if people per state do not agree on terms of marriage,
because of conflicting beliefs, then either revise the laws
such as neutral terms of civil unions if civil marriage isn't neutral enough
and/or even separating terms of benefits by party so people can
choose what they believe in, without imposing on equal choice beliefs and rights of others.

Either agree on a state policy so nobody is arguing about discrimination
or violation of beliefs, ie mediating and resolving all conflicts so laws are neutral,
and/or separate policies for funding and managing benefits if people cannot agree
due to their beliefs.

The Supreme Court has already ruled that as unconstitutional. Equal protection of our laws

How do you resolve married gay people moving between the states?
They are married or they are not

Dear rightwinger
States retain the right to manage their own civil unions and definitions.
if they recognize gay marriage as marriage that's up to each state.
If they only recognize civil unions, then that's what it's called in that state.

Some states don't require car insurance, if the driver has "ability to pay" and can prove it.
So in that state, the same driver with the same car is under different rules.

States like Nevada have legalized prostitution, that only applies in that state.

For national policies on health care and other social benefits,
I recommend to my fellow progressive Democrats and Greens
to organize by party. So people can have collective representation
and management of resources to fund policies that correspond
and represent beliefs in marriage, health care, prison alternatives,
educational priorities, etc.

if not everyone agrees on social policies through federal govt.
AND by the Platform of the Veterans Party of America
"ALL social legislation is Unconstitutional"
then why not manage it by party and have taxpayers
pay directly into the programs of choice?

I know tons of progressives who believe in paying
for education and health care instead of funding
war and the death penalty.

Why not give taxpayers that choice?

If it's organized by party then the responsibility
for all the terms and agreements is delegated
to one national group to represent its members,
similar to states being responsible for representing its citizens.

Just proportionally delegate federal budgets to allot
money to states, and states divide it by party by
proportion of taxpayers and taxmoney coming in.
so if GOP do not want to pay to federal govt
except for military, they don't get federal funds for health care
except for VA/vets if that's all they approve.
If Dems want singlepayer health care and no death penalty,
then that's where their tax money goes or doesn't go.

So each pays for their share and their members
work out their terms and conditions, from prolife
to gay marriage, whatever they believe or don't believe in.

If states can agree, then it's done by state.

This is if the population of states CAN'T agree,
why not create two separate tracks and let
taxpayers choose just like we do when we
donate to parties or vote for platforms and reps.

 

[rightwinger]

You are close.....

People can CHOOSE to marry a same sex partner or not

you might not like it.....But what business is it of yours?

Dear rightwinger I'm saying to keep it out of govt if you want free choice.
Keep the language secular where everyone agrees to it.

I've found more common agreement to keep Civil Unions in govt
and manage contracts that way and NOT specify any conditions on
the social relationships between the partners who form a legal contract or domestic partnership.

If brother and sister, or two neighbors want to run a household together and share contractual
duties or legal guardianship, that has ZERO to do with if they are having romantic relations
much less if they have to be husband and wife.

And if people don't agree on benefits policies, those are social values also,
that can be separated by party if people cannot agree on state or federal laws for all people in that state or across the nation.

Not to worry rightwinger I already gave up trying to explain it.

I am happy enough to find the other people who get it,
and maybe that's enough to separate our beliefs from govt
and leave everyone else who believe in dominating one political belief "for all people"
every time majority rule decides an election. I don't believe in that,
but if you and others do, I cannot change your minds for you.

All I can do is sue or petition to separate my taxes and my representation
from people like you who believe in violating each other's by majority rule
and claim that gives you license to impose your beliefs, political or otherwise,
onto others who don't agree. and call them delusional, just like people
say that about liberals and try to censor them for it.

I believe this impositional bullying is a DANGER to the very liberal progressive
ideals I believe in regarding free choice, and protecting beliefs and creeds from
discrimination, exclusion, coercion, bullying, imposition, penalty, and deprivation of equal protection rights and liberties.

I understand you and others believe in protecting rights by establishing them through govt,
but I believe this still requires consensus where political beliefs differ.

I don't believe in forcing or imposing them without consent, or it's not
valid authority of law if not all people consent to that policy. I believe
in matters of belief, all objections and conflicts should be resolved to
ensure equal representation and protection of interests, regardless of creed.

But my standards are higher than even very intelligent articulate people like
you and Faun can handle.

so it's not fair to expect you to understand this and change your minds
if you are set on seeing opponents with other beliefs as "delusional."

That's why opponents of liberal beliefs say the same thing, give up
and just resort to voting liberals out of office.

You are danger to your own party principles and you don't even see it.
Where's the inclusion, the free choice.
Both sides have resorted to painting the other as delusional,
and that's where I have to leave you to your own devices if that's the best I can expect from you.

Thanks for your best efforts!

Just know that people say the same thing and think
liberals are "mentally ill" or "deluded" in depending on govt for rights when to them
that is a false and dangerous premise.

Or they want "everyone else" to pay for their programs
so when I advocate to separate tracks so taxpayers have a choice,
they say "liberals will never support that because they want OTHER people
to pay for their programs".

That makes no sense to me. If I and other Democrats believe in sustainable
health care, we should be able to fund it ourselves. And if it's not affordable,
something is wrong with the terms and conditions, and we'd have to change
them such as requiring all people get help for criminal illness abuse or addiction
if that's what driving costs up that could otherwise pay for health care.

I hope it's finally time to separate social programs and funding by party,
Because I'm sick of fighting back and forth when all parties have enough
resources to manage their own policies and not interfere with each other!!!

Government is in the marriage business...

They certify it and make it legal
They provide tax breaks
They provide spousal protections for survivorship and medical care
They supervise the dissolution of marriage

What do you want them to stop doing?

Dear rightwinger
I'm saying if people per state do not agree on terms of marriage,
because of conflicting beliefs, then either revise the laws
such as neutral terms of civil unions if civil marriage isn't neutral enough
and/or even separating terms of benefits by party so people can
choose what they believe in, without imposing on equal choice beliefs and rights of others.

Either agree on a state policy so nobody is arguing about discrimination
or violation of beliefs, ie mediating and resolving all conflicts so laws are neutral,
and/or separate policies for funding and managing benefits if people cannot agree
due to their beliefs.

The Supreme Court has already ruled that as unconstitutional. Equal protection of our laws

How do you resolve married gay people moving between the states?
They are married or they are not

Dear rightwinger
States retain the right to manage their own civil unions and definitions.
if they recognize gay marriage as marriage that's up to each state.
If they only recognize civil unions, then that's what it's called in that state.

Some states don't require car insurance, if the driver has "ability to pay" and can prove it.
So in that state, the same driver with the same car is under different rules.

States like Nevada have legalized prostitution, that only applies in that state.

For national policies on health care and other social benefits,
I recommend to my fellow progressive Democrats and Greens
to organize by party. So people can have collective representation
and management of resources to fund policies that correspond
and represent beliefs in marriage, health care, prison alternatives,
educational priorities, etc.

if not everyone agrees on social policies through federal govt.
AND by the Platform of the Veterans Party of America
"ALL social legislation is Unconstitutional"
then why not manage it by party and have taxpayers
pay directly into the programs of choice?

I know tons of progressives who believe in paying
for education and health care instead of funding
war and the death penalty.

Why not give taxpayers that choice?

If it's organized by party then the responsibility
for all the terms and agreements is delegated
to one national group to represent its members,
similar to states being responsible for representing its citizens.

Just proportionally delegate federal budgets to allot
money to states, and states divide it by party by
proportion of taxpayers and taxmoney coming in.
so if GOP do not want to pay to federal govt
except for military, they don't get federal funds for health care
except for VA/vets if that's all they approve.
If Dems want singlepayer health care and no death penalty,
then that's where their tax money goes or doesn't go.

So each pays for their share and their members
work out their terms and conditions, from prolife
to gay marriage, whatever they believe or don't believe in.

If states can agree, then it's done by state.

This is if the population of states CAN'T agree,
why not create two separate tracks and let
taxpayers choose just like we do when we
donate to parties or vote for platforms and reps.

In all that verbal diarrhea you failed to answer a simple question

With each state deciding same sex marriage is allowed or not, how do you handle gay couples traveling between states?

Try to answer in less than 50 words

 

[emilynghiem]

Dear rightwinger
YES, that's what I'm talking about.
Separating ALL social benefits from beliefs about marriage, too!
Examples:
1. either AGREE to manage all of these benefits for Civil Unions (or if states agree to call them Civil Marriages but I think this gets into conflict)
as SECULAR financial and legal agreements APART from any conditions or beliefs about the RELATIONSHIP between the two parties in a contract.
Beneficiaries can also be secularized/neutral, and have no restrictions on relationship if the people of the state agree to those terms.
2. or if people CANNOT agree on social terms,
separate ALL such benefits (as we already know people do NOT agree on health care managed through state or federal govt or through free market chioces)
BY PARTY and/or by TAX FORM
where people can CHOOSE whether to go through their state, party or federal program
and not affect taxpayers who CHOOSE a different system.

This would solve SEVERAL problems at once include different beliefs on
* abortion and birth control
* drug use and who pays for the health problems if people choose to use drugs, alcohol, tobacco etc.
* prison policies on death penalty, mentally ill, even Spiritual Healing that has been used to cure not only mental and physical illness but even criminal illness,
and restorative justice approaches whether religious or nonprofit or secular
etc.

By separating funding for prisons, that money alone saved by restorative justice measures would help save
resources in order to afford sustainable universal health care

You are close.....

People can CHOOSE to marry a same sex partner or not

you might not like it.....But what business is it of yours?

Dear rightwinger I'm saying to keep it out of govt if you want free choice.
Keep the language secular where everyone agrees to it.

I've found more common agreement to keep Civil Unions in govt
and manage contracts that way and NOT specify any conditions on
the social relationships between the partners who form a legal contract or domestic partnership.

If brother and sister, or two neighbors want to run a household together and share contractual
duties or legal guardianship, that has ZERO to do with if they are having romantic relations
much less if they have to be husband and wife.

And if people don't agree on benefits policies, those are social values also,
that can be separated by party if people cannot agree on state or federal laws for all people in that state or across the nation.

Not to worry rightwinger I already gave up trying to explain it.

I am happy enough to find the other people who get it,
and maybe that's enough to separate our beliefs from govt
and leave everyone else who believe in dominating one political belief "for all people"
every time majority rule decides an election. I don't believe in that,
but if you and others do, I cannot change your minds for you.

All I can do is sue or petition to separate my taxes and my representation
from people like you who believe in violating each other's by majority rule
and claim that gives you license to impose your beliefs, political or otherwise,
onto others who don't agree. and call them delusional, just like people
say that about liberals and try to censor them for it.

I believe this impositional bullying is a DANGER to the very liberal progressive
ideals I believe in regarding free choice, and protecting beliefs and creeds from
discrimination, exclusion, coercion, bullying, imposition, penalty, and deprivation of equal protection rights and liberties.

I understand you and others believe in protecting rights by establishing them through govt,
but I believe this still requires consensus where political beliefs differ.

I don't believe in forcing or imposing them without consent, or it's not
valid authority of law if not all people consent to that policy. I believe
in matters of belief, all objections and conflicts should be resolved to
ensure equal representation and protection of interests, regardless of creed.

But my standards are higher than even very intelligent articulate people like
you and Faun can handle.

so it's not fair to expect you to understand this and change your minds
if you are set on seeing opponents with other beliefs as "delusional."

That's why opponents of liberal beliefs say the same thing, give up
and just resort to voting liberals out of office.

You are danger to your own party principles and you don't even see it.
Where's the inclusion, the free choice.
Both sides have resorted to painting the other as delusional,
and that's where I have to leave you to your own devices if that's the best I can expect from you.

Thanks for your best efforts!

Just know that people say the same thing and think
liberals are "mentally ill" or "deluded" in depending on govt for rights when to them
that is a false and dangerous premise.

Or they want "everyone else" to pay for their programs
so when I advocate to separate tracks so taxpayers have a choice,
they say "liberals will never support that because they want OTHER people
to pay for their programs".

That makes no sense to me. If I and other Democrats believe in sustainable
health care, we should be able to fund it ourselves. And if it's not affordable,
something is wrong with the terms and conditions, and we'd have to change
them such as requiring all people get help for criminal illness abuse or addiction
if that's what driving costs up that could otherwise pay for health care.

I hope it's finally time to separate social programs and funding by party,
Because I'm sick of fighting back and forth when all parties have enough
resources to manage their own policies and not interfere with each other!!!

Government is in the marriage business...

They certify it and make it legal
They provide tax breaks
They provide spousal protections for survivorship and medical care
They supervise the dissolution of marriage

What do you want them to stop doing?

Dear rightwinger
I'm saying if people per state do not agree on terms of marriage,
because of conflicting beliefs, then either revise the laws
such as neutral terms of civil unions if civil marriage isn't neutral enough
and/or even separating terms of benefits by party so people can
choose what they believe in, without imposing on equal choice beliefs and rights of others.

Either agree on a state policy so nobody is arguing about discrimination
or violation of beliefs, ie mediating and resolving all conflicts so laws are neutral,
and/or separate policies for funding and managing benefits if people cannot agree
due to their beliefs.

We don't make laws based on peoples' feelings or religious objections. If we did, capital punishment would be unconstitutional, pork would be banned, cotton/wool blends would be punishable, etc...

Yes Faun I also believe in separating funding for the death penalty
so people can have a free choice but it doesn't impose on other people's choice of funding.

This would take a lot of the "emotional hype" out of election campaigns
if all issues were resolved one by one instead of lumped together,
voting for one party to dominate while the other in the minority risks losing representation.

A lot of fear based bullying going on now would be eliminated
if we based laws on consensus or separation by party so everyone
is equally represented and not forced to fund the beliefs of others.

As for fabric, by the time the Greens Democrats and Social Workers
organize labor pools and worker owned coops and business networks,
maybe we will see more locally grown "hemp" fabric and/or whatever is more sustainable.
maybe we won't rely so much on foreign slave labor for clothing and electronic devices
if we organize labor and factories as campuses providing education, health care and housing
as part of work-study programs to ensure students and workers have protection from abuse,
even if working for barter or credit, or lower training wages in exchange for low cost housing and services.

Religious beliefs and objections are part of how people express consent or dissent.
I believe the right solutions will satisfy people's standards regardless if these are expressed religiously, politically, spiritually or by secular laws, business models, etc.
Faun

 

[Sneekin]

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

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

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

So if my LGBT friends need public endorsement of certain policies to feel equally represented in laws, let's find a way to achieve that 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.

Dear Faun I agree with your other post and will reply to focus on that where we agree.

For this, opponents argue similar as you do that LGBT are trying to change the definition of marriage. You insist that it only means the CIVIL marriage. But that's not what that means to other citizens who have equal right to how laws are worded. CIVIL unions and domestic contracts would solve this problem for more people. So I'd leave that to states to work out terms.

If you are going to reform and expand on meanings of terms, let's do the same for the word God instead of cutting that out from public institutions to please the minority.

Let's agree God can mean universal truth wisdom or collective knowledge, laws of nature, Greater Public Good, forces of life etc. Depending on context. Let's agree Jesus means universal justice with mercy or equal justice for all humanity. So we don't have to remove that term or change the wording.

If you are willing to trade out compromises in tolerating different beliefs, maybe those opposing specific marriage beliefs would agree to tolerate those in exchange for tolerating beliefs about creation, etc. In public institutions instead of insisting on removal.

Including beliefs about creation or prayer isn't forcing anyone to change to those, yet these are removed due to faith based beliefs that are relative and free choice.

Well so are beliefs about LGBT, marriage, orientation/identity as natural or unnatural (or both as I believe they're not all unnatural/changeable nor all natural/unchangeable but depend on spiritual conditions the govt can't define for people).

If everyone agrees to equal treatment of beliefs, then we could achieve mutual tolerance on all sides.

It just can't be one sided, Faun, only pushing liberal beliefs calling them secular while rejecting the beliefs of others as religious when both are equally Faith based and remain equal choice until proven by science or accepted by free will not force of govt.

It really makes no difference what the others think - I am free to marry (civilly) whoever I want to marry. Pardon this expression, but it fits perfectly - I can't change stupid. If they are too stupid to understand that they are having holy matrimony performed, some gay people are having holy matrimony, some gays and some straights are only getting a civil marriage, but in ALL cases, they ALL are getting civilly married, be it priest, rabbi or judge.

It's not a matter of tolerance. It's equal protection. Just as prayer in school of crucifix in the public square violates my equal protection. Your beliefs about creation or prayer do attempt to change my beliefs, and so have ruled the courts. It violates my first amendment rights. You also aren't winning any friends using unnatural. Leave spirituality out of this, we are discussing civil marriage only. We already have equal treatment of beliefs. We are all free to get married, we are all able to worship in our own houses of worship. I can't force anyone to enter into a SSM or OSM, and they can't force me to pray, and I can't force them to pray. Faith based beliefs (ie, Hobby Lobby, Chik-fil-a, etc are most certainly forcing their religious beliefs on me, and I will never utilize their services. You will not be allowed to teach creationism, as it it a religious based method that isn't truthful in several ways (ie, the earth is only a few thousands of years old, yet we carbon date things from millions of years ago). You might want to research more on Jesus, as some religions view him as a charlatan, some just as a man, some believe he never existed, and some believe him to be nothing more than a prophet. Why should you be able to teach my children that? If I'm a devout theist, or Muslim, or Buddhist, I find your total opening sentences comopletely offensive. Don't tell me I have to believe in someone that never existed, or was nothing ore than a prophet.