Gay marriage is not a constitutional right

[Sneekin]

Emily, you are missing the big picture. You can't contest slavery, and you cannot contest SSM. Texas had a law prohibiting Sodomy (between two men) which was overturned in Lawrence V Texas in the early 90's. They had an Amendment prohibiting SSM. The courts, up to and including the SCOTUS found it to be in violation of the 14th Amendment. Roe v Wade was in the 70's. Your friends may not like any of them, they can complain all they want. They are law. As we found in Roe, some restrictions can be put in place. The same can't be said with SSM and slavery. Sorry your friends don't agree that the government doesn't have the right to rule, but the intent of the SCOTUS is to rule if a law is constitutional or not. Obergefell was ruled, and it was determined that Texas and a few others were wrong, their amendment/laws were invalidated. Your friends may not agree, but it's really a case of too bad, so sad, it's law. Are you wanting to overturn the 14th amendment as well?

I don't argue at all that unconstitutional bans be struck down because I agree with that part.
[I even believe Clinton and other politicians who passed DOMA owe restitution for costs and damages to taxpayers for passing an unconstitutional bill that people openly protested but weren't heard, same as with ACA mandates that were protested to begin with as unconstitutional. there should be consequence for that to ensure representation]

The part that I do not agree with is abusing govt to establish beliefs in marriage, either way.

Because beliefs are involved, people should decided by consensus, or someone's beliefs get discriminated against.
If they don't agree, then of course, the govt should not recognize that law which is biased against one sides beliefs or the others.

I also agree that bans on abortion had to be struck down because they
violate due process and discriminate by targeting women more than men,
when men are equally responsible for the sex and pregnancy, if not MORE in the case of rape and incest.

but striking down a bad law does not mean endorsing abortion as legal,
and people who don't believe in that can still argue to separate funding and policies to avoid
endorsing through govt what they believe is murder.

I do believe separating beliefs from govt should apply to all, even people I don't agree
or hold that belief to the same degree they do. Laws should remain neutral and all inclusive,
even if that means separating some policies so people can fund their beliefs accordingly
and not interfere with the equal choice of other taxpayers.

Sneekin

Emily, you can't ask anyone make restitution for DOMA - no one contested it. No one is abusing government to force people to change their minds. No one has changed their beliefs. Again, we are a republic, not a democracy, so beliefs cannot be voted on - or else, contrary to what you claim, if you vote on this belief, you will be guaranteeing discrimination, not avoiding it. You also appear not to have a firm grasp on how government works. You are unaware on how Roe worked - hint - it was primarily based on a woman's right to privacy. You cannot ever provide separate funding - that's discriminatory. If I'm not a taxpayer because I'm a 13 year old child raped by a father or brother, and pregnant because of incest, you claim I can't have an abortion? You are ludicrous. Laws remain legal. Laws are neutral - no one is forcing you to 1) get married; 2) if married, marry a woman; or 3) if married, marry a man. That's as neutral as it gets. That's all inclusive, as well. Taxpayers have a choice - get married or not, SSM or not. It fulfills your wishes of equal choice. You are claiming they have the right to straight up discriminate, and that is not true. I don't want to pay taxes today. Do I have equal choice to just say no, without penalty? NO. I don't want 33 percent going to the military, can I withhold that 33 percent without penalty? NO. We voted in representatives. They represent us. You are blaming them for voting the will of the people, and not your personal will. That's not government's fault.

I am contesting both DOMA and ACA as unconstitutional Sneekin
It's against the Constitution and Code of Ethics for Govt Service to pass discriminatory laws that should have been caught and revised in the first place to represent ALL people's beliefs and NOT waste taxpayers resources fighting after the fact.

If your consent and beliefs were not violated you don't have to contest it.

But my beliefs ARE violated every time laws and ruling are passed involving beliefs where one side gets endorsed or excluded by the state in favor of the other belief.

Sneekin imagine if you are like me, and if the progay rights are violated OR if the antigay beliefs are violated then either way my beliefs in consensus on laws are violated. Imagine that with prolife and prochoice, that by my constitutional beliefs about political beliefs both sides have to agree to how laws are written and enforced in order to be fully constitutional by my beliefs.

Same with gun rights, and with every partisan election. My beliefs are constantly violated because the majority believes that political beliefs do have the right to impose on others through Govt while I believe in consent of the governed as the final check.

SO yes I do believe I have the right to ASK for correction and restitution. But by consent of the governed if people don't agree I can't force my political beliefs on anyone.

I can just ASK that they be respected.

Is that clear? Thanks !

DOMA - already overturned. ACA? Found to be constitutional, by the SCOTUS. The word marriage? Accepted by all. Your rights are not violated. Rights aren't determined by majority rules - that's a "democracy". The US is NOT a democracy. You are not owed correction, and restitution? That makes me laugh. You can ask away. Be prepared to be laughed out of every court room and legislature. You seem to think we can rename previously defined verbiage, written into law, apparently by the wave of your magic wand. You cannot vote any of my rights away....... What if 95 percent of the population votes and says we don't have the right to bear arms. Does that become law? No, because it would be patently illegal. It violates the SECOND amendment. You don't get to vote to rename marriage simply because you don't like it. Whatever you would substitute for the word marriage, would have to apply both religiously and secularly - a concept that's been told to you, yet you fail to understand.

 

[Sneekin]

Emily, please reference what rights of yours are violated - that is, NAME THE LAWS/AMENDMENTS that are being broken. Just because you don't like something doesn't mean it violates your rights. You have a lot to learn, if you still believe that. Provide me the name of your attorney that's handling the case, what stage it's at in the legal system, and if it's made it to SCOTUS yet. You see, you think you are having your rights violated, because you don't like the evil gays using the word marriage when they get married. You think we need different terms for religious versus secular marriage, which of course, as you've been told numerous times, is not legal - that is, it violates the rights of everyone. In fact, just about every one of your suggestions violates the constitutional rights of gays, blacks, hispanics, elderly, male/female, religious, atheist, etc. You cannot ever please all of the people, all of the time. The evil gays are going to have a valid MARRIAGE LICENSE issued by the State of Texas, just the same as the Fundamental Christians will have. Now, if the Fundies want to give up all of their legal rights, and call it Holy Matrimony (source: The Bible), have at it. Just don't complain when the spouses and children lose all of their rights, including inheritance, insurance, rights of survivorship, retirement rights, etc (unless they want to shell out 5-10K to immortalize the 1138 rights that people that are "civilly" married are entitled to. I'm all for dropping them, if they want to. But I hope they realize that their offspring won't have parents that are legally married - making the children.....offspring from an unmarried woman....Waiting patiently for your list of rights being violated. DOMA/ACA have already been ruled on - one no longer exists, both have been upheld by SCOTUS........

 

[Sneekin]

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:
Reclaiming the Rule of Law after Obergefell

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.

This isn't about abortion either. Why can't you make your case without dragging in all sorts of unrelated issues?

That aside, you made the claim that same-sex marriage can be practiced under the freedom to exercise religion. That's complete nonsense and something no one is claiming.

Either quote the portion from the Obergefell decision which sites freedom of religion or admit you have no position to stand on...

Dear Faun The reason is because the OBJECTIONS to gay marriage are coming from a wide range of reasons and sources. That's why I am addressing all the factors.

Same with abortion. There are at least 5 major issues I've found wrapped up in why people support or oppose abortion policies on different levels.

The correct way to address all these is give each factor and reason full attention to resolve ALL the conflicts around it.

Faun it is like a huge knot with layers piled on top, where to untie the knot and straighten it out
takes loosening up each string pulling in every direction. Instead of tightening these
ropes and knots, the goal is to unwrap each one in turn, so we can undo the deadlock.

People generally don't see all the layers.
It is very deep. In forming a consensus, and addressing each and every conflicting factor,
I've had to work backwards and dig up each and every objection and resolve them
in order to establish working relations and understanding with each person.

then we can work together to address which points we feel are the key.

With each person their points may be different!

So just because you throw something out as irrelevant to the legal issue,
doesn't mean that point isn't the real reason someone else is objecting.

By resolving all this, we CAN get to and stick to just the relevant points.
But Faun not everyone is objective on all points.
And the process has involved these other areas that affect
how we respond and process information and communicate that with others.

Thanks for your patience.
This is not as easy as it looks to you.

If we are going to have agreement on enforcing laws,
instead of bullying and harassing over LGBT issues,
this is a very necessary part of the process,
to understand the layers of human perception
that are part of the puzzle.

When we make laws touching on these spiritual issues,
that's what happens, it connects to other areas as well.

Emily

What if I OBJECTED to your marriage for whatever twisted reason

Should the government accommodate my objections out of a sense of being fair to everyone's concerns

1. to keep govt and other people out of marriage, that's why I'm saying to keep marriage out of govt!

PRECISELY rightwinger!

2. and yes, people do not have to recognize each other's "marriage" as in social or spiritual relations as a "couple" in order to honor the civil contracts and rights. Lot of families go through that, it happens. If a father does not accept his daughter marrying some guy he doesn't approve of, the govt cannot make him accept that guy as a "husband." if there is a financial contract, such as the guy owns the car or house his daughter is living in with her husband, of course, the father respects the legal and financial ownership that is secular. But does not have to respect someone "socially as a husband" if the father just doesn't respect that, that's his choice! And it doesn't have to interfere with respecting the guardianship and legal contractual obligations or duties that the guy has with the children. He can still be recognized as legal guardian without being accepted "socially" as the "husband" which is a personal choice.

So for the civil contracts and legal guardianships, that's a secular role. But no, the govt cannot make anyone recognize a social relationship any more than it can make you accept Jesus or God. that's personal choice and not the govt's business.

BTW rightwinger you also asked what harm is done by govt endorsing marriage for all people. the harm is if this isn't established by consent of the people, so it is govt imposing or establishing certain beliefs about marriage FOR the people, instead of the other way, where the people AGREE to form or reform the laws to reflect consent on a policy.

A law that is arrived at by consensus is different in spirit than a law imposed by opposing sides forcing their political will on the other. To make an ironic analogy, rightwinger, it's like the Difference between a marriage by CHOICE or a forced arranged marriage. I'm saying forcing the marriage laws on people where they didn't agree in advance is like a prearranged marriage where the people affected didn't have equal say in it. One partner may be thrilled but the other horrified at the decision. So that coercion causes harm, and it's better to arrive at laws and reforms by consent of all parties affected, especially with sensitive matters!

Your entire premise is flawed. If your father doesn't like your husband, the Government most certainly DOES recognize the marriage. No one cares what your father thinks - he's free to his opinion - but not free to violate the law. What might help you grasp what everyone else here is talking about - read Loving V Virginia - here's a BRIEF summary:

In Loving v. Virginia, decided on June 12, 1967, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously struck down Virginia's law prohibiting interracial marriages as a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Your opinions (I stress, you have OPINIONS only, not alterations needed to existing laws) are the same as tens of thousands of people in Virginia and throughout the south. Even though Loving was decided June 12, 1967, those same people still thought it was wrong, and didn't want to consider them married, nor allow them to get married if they could. Guess what.....interracial marriage is alive and well, 49 1/2 years later. Should we rename it to something other than marriage? Why not? The majority of Christians were against interracial marriage, and they would have liked it renamed. Of course, almost 50 years later there remains only a hundred or less Christian sects that prohibit interracial marriage, and my kids and grand kids are always shocked and amazed how racist their ancestors (most of whom are still alive) could be. My grandchildren are shocked that anyone would be against SSM. They've gone to school with gay and trans kids literally all the way through, K-12 - they are in their early and mid 20's. We aren't talking arranged marriage, either.

 

[Sbiker]

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.

Marriage laws are not discrimination because of creed. By the proverbial "you" not removing references to Crosses, Prayers, God, Jesus, etc from public institutions, you are violating the 1st amendment. I'm tolerant and inclusive of everyone's beliefs. I am intolerant if they are vocal and demand to violate the civil rights of others. Not allowing SSM violates the 14th amendment.

Why do you consider marriage generally as "human rights"? Relations and official marriage - is a different things. Marriage, instead of sexual relations, is a form of social agreement to make new members of society. Gay marriage cannot produce them - so, it's not a "human rights", it's a form of deception of society from some "active" people.

Huh? Are gay folks not human? Do they not have the same rights as straight folks? And marriage is about many aspects, reproduction is but one. Not everyone who gets married has kids; yet they still have the right to get married. And many couples who do marry, whether opposite-sex or same-sex, raise families through adoption.

Marriage - is not a rights. It's obligations. Spouses form a new society cell - and society gives them upkeep to do it. I mean not only reproduction, but education too. I know, some families don't have children and don't want to educate anyone, but why we have to add in this system families, known good as not able to educate children?

You speaking about rights of gays - did you remembered about rights of children? Without imposed homosexualism and without domestic sexual abuse?

Otherwise, what is the reason of official marriage, if you want to have a sex? "Because God forbid it?" So, God forbid an homosexualism too...

 

[Sbiker]

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.

Marriage laws are not discrimination because of creed. By the proverbial "you" not removing references to Crosses, Prayers, God, Jesus, etc from public institutions, you are violating the 1st amendment. I'm tolerant and inclusive of everyone's beliefs. I am intolerant if they are vocal and demand to violate the civil rights of others. Not allowing SSM violates the 14th amendment.

Why do you consider marriage generally as "human rights"? Relations and official marriage - is a different things. Marriage, instead of sexual relations, is a form of social agreement to make new members of society. Gay marriage cannot produce them - so, it's not a "human rights", it's a form of deception of society from some "active" people.

Sbiker, first of all, note that they are civil rights, constitutional rights. Next, sbiker, note that marriage most certainly is not a form of social agreement to make new members of society. My father and stepmother entered into marriage after the death of my mother. My stepmother was told by her doctor she would die if she became pregnant. When I entered the working world, I encountered literally thousands of people not wishing to have children - ever. Using your logic, the elderly, infirm, and those not wanting children should not be permitted to get married. This includes the millions of men and women with fertility problems. Gay people have, and do have children. Especially those in their 40's, 50's and beyond, who under societal pressure, married and had children. They also adopt, they are now using surrogates at a higher percentage that heterosexuals.

It's not a form of deception. It's a fact of life. You cannot deny my child the right to get married if she's infertile, or if her spouse is infertile, or if they decide not to have children. You cannot deny her the right to get married if she is gay, either. Better get your facts straight. Marriage is not about making more children. Marriage is a civil contract between two people (not two and some expected offspring) who meet the criteria for marriage (age, familial relationship, etc) within the confines of law. The state laws in some states were overturned because they violated the 14th amendment. Now move on, sbiker, and do some research. Also read all the posts - this was brought up early on, more than likely in the first 5-10 pages.

I don't have competences in US laws and only discuss, how it can be historically or logically. What is the main purpose of marriage? You mean, it's a sort of achievement, you got once, place it into frame and hang to wall and proud?

Marriage - it's not a rights. It's an obligation. It's a sort of job - for the both spouses. It's a target of help from government and church - to upkeep education to new born members of society.

Look, if somebody wants to be woodcutter - he trains, buys a license and works as woodcutter. If he don't want - he don't do it. Common peolple, which cannot be woodcutter - don't need a fake license! Why do you think, gays need to have? Maybe, because you're still discriminating them in your mind???

 

[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.

Marriage laws are not discrimination because of creed. By the proverbial "you" not removing references to Crosses, Prayers, God, Jesus, etc from public institutions, you are violating the 1st amendment. I'm tolerant and inclusive of everyone's beliefs. I am intolerant if they are vocal and demand to violate the civil rights of others. Not allowing SSM violates the 14th amendment.

Why do you consider marriage generally as "human rights"? Relations and official marriage - is a different things. Marriage, instead of sexual relations, is a form of social agreement to make new members of society. Gay marriage cannot produce them - so, it's not a "human rights", it's a form of deception of society from some "active" people.

Huh? Are gay folks not human? Do they not have the same rights as straight folks? And marriage is about many aspects, reproduction is but one. Not everyone who gets married has kids; yet they still have the right to get married. And many couples who do marry, whether opposite-sex or same-sex, raise families through adoption.

Marriage - is not a rights. It's obligations. Spouses form a new society cell - and society gives them upkeep to do it. I mean not only reproduction, but education too. I know, some families don't have children and don't want to educate anyone, but why we have to add in this system families, known good as not able to educate children?

You speaking about rights of gays - did you remembered about rights of children? Without imposed homosexualism and without domestic sexual abuse?

Otherwise, what is the reason of official marriage, if you want to have a sex? "Because God forbid it?" So, God forbid an homosexualism too...

Of course marriage is a right. That's been reaffirmed no less than 14 times by the U.S. Supreme Court.

1. Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190, 205, 211 (1888): Marriage is “the most important relation in life” and “the foundation of the family and society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress.”
   
   
2. Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 399 (1923): The right “to marry, establish a home and bring up children” is a central part of liberty protected by the Due Process Clause.
   
   
3. Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942): Marriage “one of the basic civil rights of man,” “fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race.”
   
   
4. Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 486 (1965): “We deal with a right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights—older than our political parties, older than our school system. Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects. Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions.”
   
   
5. Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 12 (1967): “The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.”
   
   
6. Boddie v. Connecticut, 401 U.S. 371, 376, 383 (1971): “Marriage involves interests of basic importance to our society” and is “a fundamental human relationship.”
   
   
7. Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur, 414 U.S. 632, 639-40 (1974): “This Court has long recognized that freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.”
   
   
8. Moore v. City of East Cleveland, 431 U.S. 494, 499 (1977) (plurality): “When the government intrudes on choices concerning family living arrangements, this Court must examine carefully the importance of the governmental interests advanced and the extent to which they are served by the challenged regulation.”
   
   
9. Carey v. Population Services International, 431 U.S. 678, 684-85 (1977): “It is clear that among the decisions that an individual may make without unjustified government interference are personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, and child rearing and education.”
   
   
10. Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374, 384 (1978): “The right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals.”
    
    
11. Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 95 (1987): “The decision to marry is a fundamental right” and an “expression[ ] of emotional support and public commitment.”
    
    
12. Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 851 (1992): “These matters, involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.”
    
    
13. M.L.B. v. S.L.J., 519 U.S. 102, 116 (1996): “Choices about marriage, family life, and the upbringing of children are among associational rights this Court has ranked as ‘of basic importance in our society,’ rights sheltered by the Fourteenth Amendment against the State’s unwarranted usurpation, disregard, or disrespect.”
    
    
14. Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558, 574 (2003): “Our laws and tradition afford constitutional protection to personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, and education. … Persons in a homosexual relationship may seek autonomy for these purposes, just as heterosexual persons do.”

... so marriage is most certainly a right -- and the courts (and many states) determined there are no compelling interests to deny folks equal protection under the law by restricting them access to the right to marry the person of their choice even if that other person happens to be of the same gender.

The bigger question is .... why on Earth would you seek to let the government take away rights from anybody?

 

[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.

Marriage laws are not discrimination because of creed. By the proverbial "you" not removing references to Crosses, Prayers, God, Jesus, etc from public institutions, you are violating the 1st amendment. I'm tolerant and inclusive of everyone's beliefs. I am intolerant if they are vocal and demand to violate the civil rights of others. Not allowing SSM violates the 14th amendment.

Why do you consider marriage generally as "human rights"? Relations and official marriage - is a different things. Marriage, instead of sexual relations, is a form of social agreement to make new members of society. Gay marriage cannot produce them - so, it's not a "human rights", it's a form of deception of society from some "active" people.

Sbiker, first of all, note that they are civil rights, constitutional rights. Next, sbiker, note that marriage most certainly is not a form of social agreement to make new members of society. My father and stepmother entered into marriage after the death of my mother. My stepmother was told by her doctor she would die if she became pregnant. When I entered the working world, I encountered literally thousands of people not wishing to have children - ever. Using your logic, the elderly, infirm, and those not wanting children should not be permitted to get married. This includes the millions of men and women with fertility problems. Gay people have, and do have children. Especially those in their 40's, 50's and beyond, who under societal pressure, married and had children. They also adopt, they are now using surrogates at a higher percentage that heterosexuals.

It's not a form of deception. It's a fact of life. You cannot deny my child the right to get married if she's infertile, or if her spouse is infertile, or if they decide not to have children. You cannot deny her the right to get married if she is gay, either. Better get your facts straight. Marriage is not about making more children. Marriage is a civil contract between two people (not two and some expected offspring) who meet the criteria for marriage (age, familial relationship, etc) within the confines of law. The state laws in some states were overturned because they violated the 14th amendment. Now move on, sbiker, and do some research. Also read all the posts - this was brought up early on, more than likely in the first 5-10 pages.

What is the main purpose of marriage?

Irrelevant.

Marriage is a right. People get married for all sorts of reasons. Whatever their reason is, is up to them, not you, not the state. The state can't prevent a couple who qualify for marriage from getting married because they can't, or won't, procreate.

 

[Sbiker]

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.

Marriage laws are not discrimination because of creed. By the proverbial "you" not removing references to Crosses, Prayers, God, Jesus, etc from public institutions, you are violating the 1st amendment. I'm tolerant and inclusive of everyone's beliefs. I am intolerant if they are vocal and demand to violate the civil rights of others. Not allowing SSM violates the 14th amendment.

Why do you consider marriage generally as "human rights"? Relations and official marriage - is a different things. Marriage, instead of sexual relations, is a form of social agreement to make new members of society. Gay marriage cannot produce them - so, it's not a "human rights", it's a form of deception of society from some "active" people.

Sbiker, first of all, note that they are civil rights, constitutional rights. Next, sbiker, note that marriage most certainly is not a form of social agreement to make new members of society. My father and stepmother entered into marriage after the death of my mother. My stepmother was told by her doctor she would die if she became pregnant. When I entered the working world, I encountered literally thousands of people not wishing to have children - ever. Using your logic, the elderly, infirm, and those not wanting children should not be permitted to get married. This includes the millions of men and women with fertility problems. Gay people have, and do have children. Especially those in their 40's, 50's and beyond, who under societal pressure, married and had children. They also adopt, they are now using surrogates at a higher percentage that heterosexuals.

It's not a form of deception. It's a fact of life. You cannot deny my child the right to get married if she's infertile, or if her spouse is infertile, or if they decide not to have children. You cannot deny her the right to get married if she is gay, either. Better get your facts straight. Marriage is not about making more children. Marriage is a civil contract between two people (not two and some expected offspring) who meet the criteria for marriage (age, familial relationship, etc) within the confines of law. The state laws in some states were overturned because they violated the 14th amendment. Now move on, sbiker, and do some research. Also read all the posts - this was brought up early on, more than likely in the first 5-10 pages.

What is the main purpose of marriage?

Irrelevant.

Marriage is a right. People get married for all sorts of reasons. Whatever their reason is, is up to them, not you, not the state. The state can't prevent a couple who qualify for marriage from getting married because they can't, or won't, procreate.

Hmm... You're, offcourse, right, if we discussing marriage as a preferable rights for spouses.

But rights of one people ends where the rights of another people starts... What about children? What about rights or every children to grow in normal, traditional family? Children - are either not a property of adults, not a mature members of society, who could completely understand own rights and psychologically able to defend them!

 

[Sbiker]

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.

Marriage laws are not discrimination because of creed. By the proverbial "you" not removing references to Crosses, Prayers, God, Jesus, etc from public institutions, you are violating the 1st amendment. I'm tolerant and inclusive of everyone's beliefs. I am intolerant if they are vocal and demand to violate the civil rights of others. Not allowing SSM violates the 14th amendment.

Why do you consider marriage generally as "human rights"? Relations and official marriage - is a different things. Marriage, instead of sexual relations, is a form of social agreement to make new members of society. Gay marriage cannot produce them - so, it's not a "human rights", it's a form of deception of society from some "active" people.

Huh? Are gay folks not human? Do they not have the same rights as straight folks? And marriage is about many aspects, reproduction is but one. Not everyone who gets married has kids; yet they still have the right to get married. And many couples who do marry, whether opposite-sex or same-sex, raise families through adoption.

Marriage - is not a rights. It's obligations. Spouses form a new society cell - and society gives them upkeep to do it. I mean not only reproduction, but education too. I know, some families don't have children and don't want to educate anyone, but why we have to add in this system families, known good as not able to educate children?

You speaking about rights of gays - did you remembered about rights of children? Without imposed homosexualism and without domestic sexual abuse?

Otherwise, what is the reason of official marriage, if you want to have a sex? "Because God forbid it?" So, God forbid an homosexualism too...

Of course marriage is a right. That's been reaffirmed no less than 14 times by the U.S. Supreme Court.

1. Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190, 205, 211 (1888): Marriage is “the most important relation in life” and “the foundation of the family and society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress.”
   
   
2. Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 399 (1923): The right “to marry, establish a home and bring up children” is a central part of liberty protected by the Due Process Clause.
   
   
3. Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942): Marriage “one of the basic civil rights of man,” “fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race.”
   
   
4. Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 486 (1965): “We deal with a right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights—older than our political parties, older than our school system. Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects. Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions.”
   
   
5. Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 12 (1967): “The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.”
   
   
6. Boddie v. Connecticut, 401 U.S. 371, 376, 383 (1971): “Marriage involves interests of basic importance to our society” and is “a fundamental human relationship.”
   
   
7. Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur, 414 U.S. 632, 639-40 (1974): “This Court has long recognized that freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.”
   
   
8. Moore v. City of East Cleveland, 431 U.S. 494, 499 (1977) (plurality): “When the government intrudes on choices concerning family living arrangements, this Court must examine carefully the importance of the governmental interests advanced and the extent to which they are served by the challenged regulation.”
   
   
9. Carey v. Population Services International, 431 U.S. 678, 684-85 (1977): “It is clear that among the decisions that an individual may make without unjustified government interference are personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, and child rearing and education.”
   
   
10. Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374, 384 (1978): “The right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals.”
    
    
11. Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 95 (1987): “The decision to marry is a fundamental right” and an “expression[ ] of emotional support and public commitment.”
    
    
12. Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 851 (1992): “These matters, involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.”
    
    
13. M.L.B. v. S.L.J., 519 U.S. 102, 116 (1996): “Choices about marriage, family life, and the upbringing of children are among associational rights this Court has ranked as ‘of basic importance in our society,’ rights sheltered by the Fourteenth Amendment against the State’s unwarranted usurpation, disregard, or disrespect.”
    
    
14. Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558, 574 (2003): “Our laws and tradition afford constitutional protection to personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, and education. … Persons in a homosexual relationship may seek autonomy for these purposes, just as heterosexual persons do.”

... so marriage is most certainly a right -- and the courts (and many states) determined there are no compelling interests to deny folks equal protection under the law by restricting them access to the right to marry the person of their choice even if that other person happens to be of the same gender.

The bigger question is .... why on Earth would you seek to let the government take away rights from anybody?

Yes, 100% good question. On the other side, providing formal rights on marriage to gays is a act of freedom and rights defend - and it's good.
On the other side - it's an automatic discriminations of rights of children and religious groups. Why the government taking away rights from religious people and giving them to gays? Does gays REALLY need them, or it's just an "bright knickknack"? Does it really nessessary for all society, or only for some candidates to president, who want to get some additional votes from political active groups?

Offcourse - religious people usually don't want to vote, and children cannot - in fact, they just an easy target to plunder their rights under the sign of "human rights defence"...

 

[Faun]

Marriage laws are not discrimination because of creed. By the proverbial "you" not removing references to Crosses, Prayers, God, Jesus, etc from public institutions, you are violating the 1st amendment. I'm tolerant and inclusive of everyone's beliefs. I am intolerant if they are vocal and demand to violate the civil rights of others. Not allowing SSM violates the 14th amendment.

Why do you consider marriage generally as "human rights"? Relations and official marriage - is a different things. Marriage, instead of sexual relations, is a form of social agreement to make new members of society. Gay marriage cannot produce them - so, it's not a "human rights", it's a form of deception of society from some "active" people.

Sbiker, first of all, note that they are civil rights, constitutional rights. Next, sbiker, note that marriage most certainly is not a form of social agreement to make new members of society. My father and stepmother entered into marriage after the death of my mother. My stepmother was told by her doctor she would die if she became pregnant. When I entered the working world, I encountered literally thousands of people not wishing to have children - ever. Using your logic, the elderly, infirm, and those not wanting children should not be permitted to get married. This includes the millions of men and women with fertility problems. Gay people have, and do have children. Especially those in their 40's, 50's and beyond, who under societal pressure, married and had children. They also adopt, they are now using surrogates at a higher percentage that heterosexuals.

It's not a form of deception. It's a fact of life. You cannot deny my child the right to get married if she's infertile, or if her spouse is infertile, or if they decide not to have children. You cannot deny her the right to get married if she is gay, either. Better get your facts straight. Marriage is not about making more children. Marriage is a civil contract between two people (not two and some expected offspring) who meet the criteria for marriage (age, familial relationship, etc) within the confines of law. The state laws in some states were overturned because they violated the 14th amendment. Now move on, sbiker, and do some research. Also read all the posts - this was brought up early on, more than likely in the first 5-10 pages.

What is the main purpose of marriage?

Irrelevant.

Marriage is a right. People get married for all sorts of reasons. Whatever their reason is, is up to them, not you, not the state. The state can't prevent a couple who qualify for marriage from getting married because they can't, or won't, procreate.

Hmm... You're, offcourse, right, if we discussing marriage as a preferable rights for spouses.

But rights of one people ends where the rights of another people starts... What about children? What about rights or every children to grow in normal, traditional family? Children - are either not a property of adults, not a mature members of society, who could completely understand own rights and psychologically able to defend them!

There's nothing else but marriage in this discussion. There is unquestionably a right to marry.

And the courts, and most states, have determined there no compelling interests in denying gay folks that fundamental right to marry the person of their choice.

 

[Faun]

Marriage laws are not discrimination because of creed. By the proverbial "you" not removing references to Crosses, Prayers, God, Jesus, etc from public institutions, you are violating the 1st amendment. I'm tolerant and inclusive of everyone's beliefs. I am intolerant if they are vocal and demand to violate the civil rights of others. Not allowing SSM violates the 14th amendment.

Why do you consider marriage generally as "human rights"? Relations and official marriage - is a different things. Marriage, instead of sexual relations, is a form of social agreement to make new members of society. Gay marriage cannot produce them - so, it's not a "human rights", it's a form of deception of society from some "active" people.

Huh? Are gay folks not human? Do they not have the same rights as straight folks? And marriage is about many aspects, reproduction is but one. Not everyone who gets married has kids; yet they still have the right to get married. And many couples who do marry, whether opposite-sex or same-sex, raise families through adoption.

Marriage - is not a rights. It's obligations. Spouses form a new society cell - and society gives them upkeep to do it. I mean not only reproduction, but education too. I know, some families don't have children and don't want to educate anyone, but why we have to add in this system families, known good as not able to educate children?

You speaking about rights of gays - did you remembered about rights of children? Without imposed homosexualism and without domestic sexual abuse?

Otherwise, what is the reason of official marriage, if you want to have a sex? "Because God forbid it?" So, God forbid an homosexualism too...

Of course marriage is a right. That's been reaffirmed no less than 14 times by the U.S. Supreme Court.

1. Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190, 205, 211 (1888): Marriage is “the most important relation in life” and “the foundation of the family and society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress.”
   
   
2. Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 399 (1923): The right “to marry, establish a home and bring up children” is a central part of liberty protected by the Due Process Clause.
   
   
3. Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942): Marriage “one of the basic civil rights of man,” “fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race.”
   
   
4. Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 486 (1965): “We deal with a right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights—older than our political parties, older than our school system. Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects. Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions.”
   
   
5. Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 12 (1967): “The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.”
   
   
6. Boddie v. Connecticut, 401 U.S. 371, 376, 383 (1971): “Marriage involves interests of basic importance to our society” and is “a fundamental human relationship.”
   
   
7. Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur, 414 U.S. 632, 639-40 (1974): “This Court has long recognized that freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.”
   
   
8. Moore v. City of East Cleveland, 431 U.S. 494, 499 (1977) (plurality): “When the government intrudes on choices concerning family living arrangements, this Court must examine carefully the importance of the governmental interests advanced and the extent to which they are served by the challenged regulation.”
   
   
9. Carey v. Population Services International, 431 U.S. 678, 684-85 (1977): “It is clear that among the decisions that an individual may make without unjustified government interference are personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, and child rearing and education.”
   
   
10. Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374, 384 (1978): “The right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals.”
    
    
11. Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 95 (1987): “The decision to marry is a fundamental right” and an “expression[ ] of emotional support and public commitment.”
    
    
12. Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 851 (1992): “These matters, involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.”
    
    
13. M.L.B. v. S.L.J., 519 U.S. 102, 116 (1996): “Choices about marriage, family life, and the upbringing of children are among associational rights this Court has ranked as ‘of basic importance in our society,’ rights sheltered by the Fourteenth Amendment against the State’s unwarranted usurpation, disregard, or disrespect.”
    
    
14. Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558, 574 (2003): “Our laws and tradition afford constitutional protection to personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, and education. … Persons in a homosexual relationship may seek autonomy for these purposes, just as heterosexual persons do.”

... so marriage is most certainly a right -- and the courts (and many states) determined there are no compelling interests to deny folks equal protection under the law by restricting them access to the right to marry the person of their choice even if that other person happens to be of the same gender.

The bigger question is .... why on Earth would you seek to let the government take away rights from anybody?

Yes, 100% good question. On the other side, providing formal rights on marriage to gays is a act of freedom and rights defend - and it's good.
On the other side - it's an automatic discriminations of rights of children and religious groups. Why the government taking away rights from religious people and giving them to gays? Does gays REALLY need them, or it's just an "bright knickknack"? Does it really nessessary for all society, or only for some candidates to president, who want to get some additional votes from political active groups?

Offcourse - religious people usually don't want to vote, and children cannot - in fact, they just an easy target to plunder their rights under the sign of "human rights defence"...

No one's rights have been taken away and given to gays. Religious folks still have the right to marry the person of their choice.

 

[Sbiker]

Why do you consider marriage generally as "human rights"? Relations and official marriage - is a different things. Marriage, instead of sexual relations, is a form of social agreement to make new members of society. Gay marriage cannot produce them - so, it's not a "human rights", it's a form of deception of society from some "active" people.

Huh? Are gay folks not human? Do they not have the same rights as straight folks? And marriage is about many aspects, reproduction is but one. Not everyone who gets married has kids; yet they still have the right to get married. And many couples who do marry, whether opposite-sex or same-sex, raise families through adoption.

Marriage - is not a rights. It's obligations. Spouses form a new society cell - and society gives them upkeep to do it. I mean not only reproduction, but education too. I know, some families don't have children and don't want to educate anyone, but why we have to add in this system families, known good as not able to educate children?

You speaking about rights of gays - did you remembered about rights of children? Without imposed homosexualism and without domestic sexual abuse?

Otherwise, what is the reason of official marriage, if you want to have a sex? "Because God forbid it?" So, God forbid an homosexualism too...

Of course marriage is a right. That's been reaffirmed no less than 14 times by the U.S. Supreme Court.

1. Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190, 205, 211 (1888): Marriage is “the most important relation in life” and “the foundation of the family and society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress.”
   
   
2. Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 399 (1923): The right “to marry, establish a home and bring up children” is a central part of liberty protected by the Due Process Clause.
   
   
3. Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942): Marriage “one of the basic civil rights of man,” “fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race.”
   
   
4. Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 486 (1965): “We deal with a right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights—older than our political parties, older than our school system. Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects. Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions.”
   
   
5. Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 12 (1967): “The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.”
   
   
6. Boddie v. Connecticut, 401 U.S. 371, 376, 383 (1971): “Marriage involves interests of basic importance to our society” and is “a fundamental human relationship.”
   
   
7. Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur, 414 U.S. 632, 639-40 (1974): “This Court has long recognized that freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.”
   
   
8. Moore v. City of East Cleveland, 431 U.S. 494, 499 (1977) (plurality): “When the government intrudes on choices concerning family living arrangements, this Court must examine carefully the importance of the governmental interests advanced and the extent to which they are served by the challenged regulation.”
   
   
9. Carey v. Population Services International, 431 U.S. 678, 684-85 (1977): “It is clear that among the decisions that an individual may make without unjustified government interference are personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, and child rearing and education.”
   
   
10. Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374, 384 (1978): “The right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals.”
    
    
11. Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 95 (1987): “The decision to marry is a fundamental right” and an “expression[ ] of emotional support and public commitment.”
    
    
12. Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 851 (1992): “These matters, involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.”
    
    
13. M.L.B. v. S.L.J., 519 U.S. 102, 116 (1996): “Choices about marriage, family life, and the upbringing of children are among associational rights this Court has ranked as ‘of basic importance in our society,’ rights sheltered by the Fourteenth Amendment against the State’s unwarranted usurpation, disregard, or disrespect.”
    
    
14. Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558, 574 (2003): “Our laws and tradition afford constitutional protection to personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, and education. … Persons in a homosexual relationship may seek autonomy for these purposes, just as heterosexual persons do.”

... so marriage is most certainly a right -- and the courts (and many states) determined there are no compelling interests to deny folks equal protection under the law by restricting them access to the right to marry the person of their choice even if that other person happens to be of the same gender.

The bigger question is .... why on Earth would you seek to let the government take away rights from anybody?

Yes, 100% good question. On the other side, providing formal rights on marriage to gays is a act of freedom and rights defend - and it's good.
On the other side - it's an automatic discriminations of rights of children and religious groups. Why the government taking away rights from religious people and giving them to gays? Does gays REALLY need them, or it's just an "bright knickknack"? Does it really nessessary for all society, or only for some candidates to president, who want to get some additional votes from political active groups?

Offcourse - religious people usually don't want to vote, and children cannot - in fact, they just an easy target to plunder their rights under the sign of "human rights defence"...

No one's rights have been taken away and given to gays. Religious folks still have the right to marry the person of their choice.

Religious folks consider, gay marriage profaned marriage sacrament. Gay marriage - it's just a senseless imitation of one of main Church rituals. Does it mean, gay marriage is the same with marriage of Maria and Josef? Can you imagine the insult, you making to christians... In fact, it's an extremism...

 

[Faun]

Huh? Are gay folks not human? Do they not have the same rights as straight folks? And marriage is about many aspects, reproduction is but one. Not everyone who gets married has kids; yet they still have the right to get married. And many couples who do marry, whether opposite-sex or same-sex, raise families through adoption.

Marriage - is not a rights. It's obligations. Spouses form a new society cell - and society gives them upkeep to do it. I mean not only reproduction, but education too. I know, some families don't have children and don't want to educate anyone, but why we have to add in this system families, known good as not able to educate children?

You speaking about rights of gays - did you remembered about rights of children? Without imposed homosexualism and without domestic sexual abuse?

Otherwise, what is the reason of official marriage, if you want to have a sex? "Because God forbid it?" So, God forbid an homosexualism too...

Of course marriage is a right. That's been reaffirmed no less than 14 times by the U.S. Supreme Court.

1. Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190, 205, 211 (1888): Marriage is “the most important relation in life” and “the foundation of the family and society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress.”
   
   
2. Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 399 (1923): The right “to marry, establish a home and bring up children” is a central part of liberty protected by the Due Process Clause.
   
   
3. Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942): Marriage “one of the basic civil rights of man,” “fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race.”
   
   
4. Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 486 (1965): “We deal with a right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights—older than our political parties, older than our school system. Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects. Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions.”
   
   
5. Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 12 (1967): “The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.”
   
   
6. Boddie v. Connecticut, 401 U.S. 371, 376, 383 (1971): “Marriage involves interests of basic importance to our society” and is “a fundamental human relationship.”
   
   
7. Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur, 414 U.S. 632, 639-40 (1974): “This Court has long recognized that freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.”
   
   
8. Moore v. City of East Cleveland, 431 U.S. 494, 499 (1977) (plurality): “When the government intrudes on choices concerning family living arrangements, this Court must examine carefully the importance of the governmental interests advanced and the extent to which they are served by the challenged regulation.”
   
   
9. Carey v. Population Services International, 431 U.S. 678, 684-85 (1977): “It is clear that among the decisions that an individual may make without unjustified government interference are personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, and child rearing and education.”
   
   
10. Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374, 384 (1978): “The right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals.”
    
    
11. Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 95 (1987): “The decision to marry is a fundamental right” and an “expression[ ] of emotional support and public commitment.”
    
    
12. Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 851 (1992): “These matters, involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.”
    
    
13. M.L.B. v. S.L.J., 519 U.S. 102, 116 (1996): “Choices about marriage, family life, and the upbringing of children are among associational rights this Court has ranked as ‘of basic importance in our society,’ rights sheltered by the Fourteenth Amendment against the State’s unwarranted usurpation, disregard, or disrespect.”
    
    
14. Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558, 574 (2003): “Our laws and tradition afford constitutional protection to personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, and education. … Persons in a homosexual relationship may seek autonomy for these purposes, just as heterosexual persons do.”

... so marriage is most certainly a right -- and the courts (and many states) determined there are no compelling interests to deny folks equal protection under the law by restricting them access to the right to marry the person of their choice even if that other person happens to be of the same gender.

The bigger question is .... why on Earth would you seek to let the government take away rights from anybody?

Yes, 100% good question. On the other side, providing formal rights on marriage to gays is a act of freedom and rights defend - and it's good.
On the other side - it's an automatic discriminations of rights of children and religious groups. Why the government taking away rights from religious people and giving them to gays? Does gays REALLY need them, or it's just an "bright knickknack"? Does it really nessessary for all society, or only for some candidates to president, who want to get some additional votes from political active groups?

Offcourse - religious people usually don't want to vote, and children cannot - in fact, they just an easy target to plunder their rights under the sign of "human rights defence"...

No one's rights have been taken away and given to gays. Religious folks still have the right to marry the person of their choice.

Religious folks consider, gay marriage profaned marriage sacrament. Gay marriage - it's just a senseless imitation of one of main Church rituals. Does it mean, gay marriage is the same with marriage of Maria and Josef? Can you imagine the insult, you making to christians... In fact, it's an extremism...

It doesn't matter if they think that. Their beliefs do not get to infringe upon the rights of others.

If they did, Americans wouldn't be allowed to eat pork as some religious folks find that offensive. They wouldn't be allowed to eat beef because some religious folks find that offensive. The list of rights we would lose would be endless.

As far as your belief that gay marriage is senseless.... while you're certainly allowed to believe that, your belief is not allowed to deny gay folks from their right to marry.

 

[Sbiker]

Marriage - is not a rights. It's obligations. Spouses form a new society cell - and society gives them upkeep to do it. I mean not only reproduction, but education too. I know, some families don't have children and don't want to educate anyone, but why we have to add in this system families, known good as not able to educate children?

You speaking about rights of gays - did you remembered about rights of children? Without imposed homosexualism and without domestic sexual abuse?

Otherwise, what is the reason of official marriage, if you want to have a sex? "Because God forbid it?" So, God forbid an homosexualism too...

Of course marriage is a right. That's been reaffirmed no less than 14 times by the U.S. Supreme Court.

1. Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190, 205, 211 (1888): Marriage is “the most important relation in life” and “the foundation of the family and society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress.”
   
   
2. Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 399 (1923): The right “to marry, establish a home and bring up children” is a central part of liberty protected by the Due Process Clause.
   
   
3. Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942): Marriage “one of the basic civil rights of man,” “fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race.”
   
   
4. Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 486 (1965): “We deal with a right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights—older than our political parties, older than our school system. Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects. Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions.”
   
   
5. Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 12 (1967): “The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.”
   
   
6. Boddie v. Connecticut, 401 U.S. 371, 376, 383 (1971): “Marriage involves interests of basic importance to our society” and is “a fundamental human relationship.”
   
   
7. Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur, 414 U.S. 632, 639-40 (1974): “This Court has long recognized that freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.”
   
   
8. Moore v. City of East Cleveland, 431 U.S. 494, 499 (1977) (plurality): “When the government intrudes on choices concerning family living arrangements, this Court must examine carefully the importance of the governmental interests advanced and the extent to which they are served by the challenged regulation.”
   
   
9. Carey v. Population Services International, 431 U.S. 678, 684-85 (1977): “It is clear that among the decisions that an individual may make without unjustified government interference are personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, and child rearing and education.”
   
   
10. Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374, 384 (1978): “The right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals.”
    
    
11. Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 95 (1987): “The decision to marry is a fundamental right” and an “expression[ ] of emotional support and public commitment.”
    
    
12. Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 851 (1992): “These matters, involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.”
    
    
13. M.L.B. v. S.L.J., 519 U.S. 102, 116 (1996): “Choices about marriage, family life, and the upbringing of children are among associational rights this Court has ranked as ‘of basic importance in our society,’ rights sheltered by the Fourteenth Amendment against the State’s unwarranted usurpation, disregard, or disrespect.”
    
    
14. Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558, 574 (2003): “Our laws and tradition afford constitutional protection to personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, and education. … Persons in a homosexual relationship may seek autonomy for these purposes, just as heterosexual persons do.”

... so marriage is most certainly a right -- and the courts (and many states) determined there are no compelling interests to deny folks equal protection under the law by restricting them access to the right to marry the person of their choice even if that other person happens to be of the same gender.

The bigger question is .... why on Earth would you seek to let the government take away rights from anybody?

Yes, 100% good question. On the other side, providing formal rights on marriage to gays is a act of freedom and rights defend - and it's good.
On the other side - it's an automatic discriminations of rights of children and religious groups. Why the government taking away rights from religious people and giving them to gays? Does gays REALLY need them, or it's just an "bright knickknack"? Does it really nessessary for all society, or only for some candidates to president, who want to get some additional votes from political active groups?

Offcourse - religious people usually don't want to vote, and children cannot - in fact, they just an easy target to plunder their rights under the sign of "human rights defence"...

No one's rights have been taken away and given to gays. Religious folks still have the right to marry the person of their choice.

Religious folks consider, gay marriage profaned marriage sacrament. Gay marriage - it's just a senseless imitation of one of main Church rituals. Does it mean, gay marriage is the same with marriage of Maria and Josef? Can you imagine the insult, you making to christians... In fact, it's an extremism...

It doesn't matter if they think that. Their beliefs do not get to infringe upon the rights of others.

As far as your belief that gay marriage is senseless.... while you're certainly allowed to believe that, your belief is not allowed to deny gay folks from their right to marry.

If gays THINK they need a marriage like an achievement - let them to have it. If christians THINK they need a marriage as a Church ritual - ignore them... WHY? Do you really have much more gays in US than christians? Or, in fact, rights of gays are much more preferrable, than others?

If they did, Americans wouldn't be allowed to eat pork as some religious folks find that offensive. They wouldn't be allowed to eat beef because some religious folks find that offensive. The list of rights we would lose would be endless.

Let's to continue this logic. Christianity forbids to murder of people, woodoo and vakhabism - allow. Let's make murdering legal. Do you still have any questions to 9/11?

As far as your belief that gay marriage is senseless.... while you're certainly allowed to believe that, your belief is not allowed to deny gay folks from their right to marry.

I don't even dispute the right of gays to invent own type of "marriage" and name it according in their traditions... But taking word "MARRIAGE" from christian tradition to pervert it publically - it's and act of aggression. Your example about pork is very good. While christians are "eating pork", gays are pulling out the piece of pork from their hands and publically using it as a toilet paper. But everyone, not only gays, must have a rights to eat own pork!

 

[emilynghiem]

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:
Reclaiming the Rule of Law after Obergefell

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.

This isn't about abortion either. Why can't you make your case without dragging in all sorts of unrelated issues?

That aside, you made the claim that same-sex marriage can be practiced under the freedom to exercise religion. That's complete nonsense and something no one is claiming.

Either quote the portion from the Obergefell decision which sites freedom of religion or admit you have no position to stand on...

Dear Faun The reason is because the OBJECTIONS to gay marriage are coming from a wide range of reasons and sources. That's why I am addressing all the factors.

Same with abortion. There are at least 5 major issues I've found wrapped up in why people support or oppose abortion policies on different levels.

The correct way to address all these is give each factor and reason full attention to resolve ALL the conflicts around it.

Faun it is like a huge knot with layers piled on top, where to untie the knot and straighten it out
takes loosening up each string pulling in every direction. Instead of tightening these
ropes and knots, the goal is to unwrap each one in turn, so we can undo the deadlock.

People generally don't see all the layers.
It is very deep. In forming a consensus, and addressing each and every conflicting factor,
I've had to work backwards and dig up each and every objection and resolve them
in order to establish working relations and understanding with each person.

then we can work together to address which points we feel are the key.

With each person their points may be different!

So just because you throw something out as irrelevant to the legal issue,
doesn't mean that point isn't the real reason someone else is objecting.

By resolving all this, we CAN get to and stick to just the relevant points.
But Faun not everyone is objective on all points.
And the process has involved these other areas that affect
how we respond and process information and communicate that with others.

Thanks for your patience.
This is not as easy as it looks to you.

If we are going to have agreement on enforcing laws,
instead of bullying and harassing over LGBT issues,
this is a very necessary part of the process,
to understand the layers of human perception
that are part of the puzzle.

When we make laws touching on these spiritual issues,
that's what happens, it connects to other areas as well.

I don't care what the reasons of objection are -- you said same-sex marriage can be practiced under the freedom to exercise religion.

You can't back that nonsense up and it's the foundation of your argument.

You're done.

???

Faun
It backs itself up!
Once you apply religious freedom to your INALIENABLE belief in your right to marry whoever you want,
Then you DON'T NEED to "justify" your beliefs because your free exercise of those beliefs is INALIENABLE.

Do you understand INALIENABLE Faun

If your rights and beliefs depend on courts or govt before you can have them, then they aren't INALIENABLE

Im saying you don't need to and never had to justify your beliefs in right to marry.

So if you are the one disparaging your own rights, and insisting they depend on govt, or insisting your beliefs depend on "justifying" them, why are you blaming me for that? I said a Muslim does NOT need to justify beliefs about pork, nor an atheist need to justify beliefs about God or crosses or lack of belief, and people who do or do not believe in gay marriage don't have to justify that either because both are entitled to their BELIEFS and these are inalienable.

Sorry you believe you have to depend on govt for your rights. I think they are natural and free exercise of religion, beliefs, will and choice covers your right to marry already. Nobody can stop anyone from setting up a ceremony and getting married unless you do it in such a way that imposes or forces other people to be responsible who aren't required to believe endorse or participate in your ceremony if they don't want to.
Just like any other cultural or religious tradition, these remain voluntary choice and can't be forced on people by law.

 

[emilynghiem]

I answered that already rightwinger
each state has its own laws whether calling it marriage,
civil marriage, civil unions.

And I also offered another alternative rather than depending on states.
If people managed social benefits by party, that can be independent of state.

What part of my answer did you not get
and I will explain it again.

I answered two different ways
1. one is if you go state by state which I answered would differ by state
2. the other is is you go by party (or religious affiliation) no matter what state you are in
that's the benefit of organizing and managing social benefits by party,
it can be national without going through state or federal govt

There are lots of nonprofits that organize member benefits
nationally or even internationally and this is all private choice.

You did forget one fact. The FEDERAL GoVERNMENT rolls up each of the 50 states and they are honored between each of the states. Civil Union is still illegal, you've been told at least 20 plus times. You cannot rename it for a class of people. You also can't manage social benefits by party, illegal as well. WHY can't you grasp that?

I am not saying only use it for a class of people. I am saying use NEUTRAL terms for EVERYONE.

In other words for each state
* if states use the term marriage then EVERYONE can get that
* if states use the term civil marriage then EVERYONE can get that
* if states use the term domestic partnership then EVERYONE can get that
* if states use the term civil contracts then EVERYONE can get that
* if states use the term civil unions then EVERYONE can get that

Whatever term states use is for ALL people inclusively or else NOBODY gets that at all.

I think Faun understands I am saying don't use the term marriage for ANYBODY if it can't be used for EVERYONE.

If people can't agree to terms of marriage for everyone then the state can't make those laws and force them on anyone using those terms.

If states agree that EVERYONE gets civil marriages, civil unions, domestic partnerships or whatever TERM that state agrees on, then that is neutral because everyone gets the same and nobody gets anything different from the state.

Sneekin if you are just caught up in what civil unions meant in the past I'm talking about the present and future not the past: if people in a state do not believe in states endorsing gay or same sex "marriages" they can be offered the choice either make ALL marriages open to ALL couples or make ALL couples only get civil unions from the states or domestic partnerships or whatever people of that state agree to call the licensing.

That way EVERYONE is treated the same such as by only getting civil contracts through the state and getting marriages through whatever traditions they believe in addition to the neutral licensing through the state.

Sneekin that's fine if you want more, if you live in a state that agrees to recognize marriage for all people as endorsed and licensed through the state Great! I'm all for that if people of that state agree.

But if they don't agree on terms unless a different set up is used, as long as EVERYONE is subject to the same and NOBODY gets more or less through the state, then at least that is equal.

I'm sorry this isn't clear Sneekin
I don't know why it is not possible for ALL couples to get civil unions if that state cannot agree on terms of marriage.

But if you have such conditions attached to the term civil union that it isn't a legal choice, that's how some people believe about marriage too !

So if you are saying no way can ALL people get civil unions but NO people should, then the same is true for marriage where either ALL people get to marry through the state or NO people should.

Just treat all people the SAME, either ALL or NONE, and that is fair to all people. Each state decides what terms it's citizens agree applies to ALL people with no exceptions and that's neutral law!

And yes, it's totally fine if all people in a state agree to majority rule passing marriage for all people! But just like rules on references to religion, God. Cteation, prayer etc in schools it has to be by consent of the people where it is NOT the govt endorsing any beliefs the public doesn't agree the state should endorse. Keeping it neutral is one thing, but language endorsing one belief or another can still be struck down as biased.

Thanks and sorry if this wasn't clear

There's already a word for it...

Marriage

Yes Faun that would be simple.
And so would declaring the Democratic platform
and beliefs about right to health care and right to marriage a
POLITICAL RELIGION
and be done with it.

We could AGREE to list out the political beliefs
that each person or group holds sacred,
agree to respect these as inviolate for those people
and requiring consent of the governed and consensus
on laws and reforms on any of these areas,
and stop the fighting over forcing one g roup's
beliefs over another's by domination or coecion.

I WISH it were that simple Faun I do!

But people like you see your stances as RIGHTS and not BELIEFS.
and so do the right to life,
and so do the right to choose
and so do the right to guns advocates.

So it goes in circles, each combating the sacred
cows that the other group draws a line in a sand for
and refuses to let govt cross that line.

We all have our beliefs, and until we agree
to treat them the same, we keep competing and
repeating the same patterns over and over,
taking turns trying to run over the other or
run them out of govt. But that doesn't make
that person's beliefs or rights 'go away" it just
makes them come back and try to defend them
again, back and forth.

Why don't we admit we have these sacred
rights and beliefs, and agree not to disparage them???

Seems simple to me Faun but
as you can see, it isn't easy to see when
it's YOUR beliefs that you are defending as rights.
When other people do that to you or me and take
something that isn't our beliefs and shove it in our
faces as law, then we can see that it should be a choice
and not forced by law. But not when
the shoe is on the other foot. Both sides are like that!

It is that simple. No one has to abandon marriage in America because some people oppose same-sex marriage. Marriage is here to stay and it now includes marriage between couples of the same sex.

Consensus on marriage might be reached if hypocrites like you admit you don't tolerate Christian practices in public as you are demanding people tolerate LGBT beliefs expressions and practices in public policy!

If you want equal rights and respect Faun that means to respect the same of others but you DONT. You insist that people's beliefs opposed to gay marriage, which cause them to reject "marriage" applied to gay couples, are due to some delusion or other deficiency. Thus Faun you are discriminating against the beliefs of others as inferior yet demanding equality for LGBT beliefs which is contradictory. You think you are not discriminating or excluding others but you keep putting them down as wrong instead of treating and respecting the beliefs as equal as I am trying to do.

And then you put me down also for trying to find ways to include all beliefs in a consensus on laws.

 

[emilynghiem]

???

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:
Reclaiming the Rule of Law after Obergefell

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.

This isn't about abortion either. Why can't you make your case without dragging in all sorts of unrelated issues?

That aside, you made the claim that same-sex marriage can be practiced under the freedom to exercise religion. That's complete nonsense and something no one is claiming.

Either quote the portion from the Obergefell decision which sites freedom of religion or admit you have no position to stand on...

Dear Faun The reason is because the OBJECTIONS to gay marriage are coming from a wide range of reasons and sources. That's why I am addressing all the factors.

Same with abortion. There are at least 5 major issues I've found wrapped up in why people support or oppose abortion policies on different levels.

The correct way to address all these is give each factor and reason full attention to resolve ALL the conflicts around it.

Faun it is like a huge knot with layers piled on top, where to untie the knot and straighten it out
takes loosening up each string pulling in every direction. Instead of tightening these
ropes and knots, the goal is to unwrap each one in turn, so we can undo the deadlock.

People generally don't see all the layers.
It is very deep. In forming a consensus, and addressing each and every conflicting factor,
I've had to work backwards and dig up each and every objection and resolve them
in order to establish working relations and understanding with each person.

then we can work together to address which points we feel are the key.

With each person their points may be different!

So just because you throw something out as irrelevant to the legal issue,
doesn't mean that point isn't the real reason someone else is objecting.

By resolving all this, we CAN get to and stick to just the relevant points.
But Faun not everyone is objective on all points.
And the process has involved these other areas that affect
how we respond and process information and communicate that with others.

Thanks for your patience.
This is not as easy as it looks to you.

If we are going to have agreement on enforcing laws,
instead of bullying and harassing over LGBT issues,
this is a very necessary part of the process,
to understand the layers of human perception
that are part of the puzzle.

When we make laws touching on these spiritual issues,
that's what happens, it connects to other areas as well.

Emily

What if I OBJECTED to your marriage for whatever twisted reason

Should the government accommodate my objections out of a sense of being fair to everyone's concerns

1. to keep govt and other people out of marriage, that's why I'm saying to keep marriage out of govt!

PRECISELY rightwinger!

2. and yes, people do not have to recognize each other's "marriage" as in social or spiritual relations as a "couple" in order to honor the civil contracts and rights. Lot of families go through that, it happens. If a father does not accept his daughter marrying some guy he doesn't approve of, the govt cannot make him accept that guy as a "husband." if there is a financial contract, such as the guy owns the car or house his daughter is living in with her husband, of course, the father respects the legal and financial ownership that is secular. But does not have to respect someone "socially as a husband" if the father just doesn't respect that, that's his choice! And it doesn't have to interfere with respecting the guardianship and legal contractual obligations or duties that the guy has with the children. He can still be recognized as legal guardian without being accepted "socially" as the "husband" which is a personal choice.

So for the civil contracts and legal guardianships, that's a secular role. But no, the govt cannot make anyone recognize a social relationship any more than it can make you accept Jesus or God. that's personal choice and not the govt's business.

BTW rightwinger you also asked what harm is done by govt endorsing marriage for all people. the harm is if this isn't established by consent of the people, so it is govt imposing or establishing certain beliefs about marriage FOR the people, instead of the other way, where the people AGREE to form or reform the laws to reflect consent on a policy.

A law that is arrived at by consensus is different in spirit than a law imposed by opposing sides forcing their political will on the other. To make an ironic analogy, rightwinger, it's like the Difference between a marriage by CHOICE or a forced arranged marriage. I'm saying forcing the marriage laws on people where they didn't agree in advance is like a prearranged marriage where the people affected didn't have equal say in it. One partner may be thrilled but the other horrified at the decision. So that coercion causes harm, and it's better to arrive at laws and reforms by consent of all parties affected, especially with sensitive matters!

Your entire premise is flawed. If your father doesn't like your husband, the Government most certainly DOES recognize the marriage. No one cares what your father thinks - he's free to his opinion - but not free to violate the law. What might help you grasp what everyone else here is talking about - read Loving V Virginia - here's a BRIEF summary:

In Loving v. Virginia, decided on June 12, 1967, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously struck down Virginia's law prohibiting interracial marriages as a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Your opinions (I stress, you have OPINIONS only, not alterations needed to existing laws) are the same as tens of thousands of people in Virginia and throughout the south. Even though Loving was decided June 12, 1967, those same people still thought it was wrong, and didn't want to consider them married, nor allow them to get married if they could. Guess what.....interracial marriage is alive and well, 49 1/2 years later. Should we rename it to something other than marriage? Why not? The majority of Christians were against interracial marriage, and they would have liked it renamed. Of course, almost 50 years later there remains only a hundred or less Christian sects that prohibit interracial marriage, and my kids and grand kids are always shocked and amazed how racist their ancestors (most of whom are still alive) could be. My grandchildren are shocked that anyone would be against SSM. They've gone to school with gay and trans kids literally all the way through, K-12 - they are in their early and mid 20's. We aren't talking arranged marriage, either.

Dear Sneekin
We are essentially saying the same thing
The govt recognizes the civil contracts and this is separate from any personal feelings or faith toward social relationships people aren't required by govt to recognize.

The part we're getting stuck on is how do states write and pass laws that distinguish the secular civil contracts that govt licenses vs the social and spiritual relations that remain private free choice.

You are saying my way of using secular civil terms for govt to use doesn't work.

I'm saying trying to attach and tie in the social relations to civil contracts is causing conflict so that should be removed.

If this can still be separated while using the term civil marriage, that's perfect.
But from what I've seen it isn't working either.

I guess we all need "marriage counseling" to get the terms on the same page so we don't keep arguing over who said what, who meant what, and why did you say it that way if you really meant something else. Etc.

But I will tell you this and same with the ACA mandates that need to be optional, if these unconstitutional laws aren't either fixed or acknowledged as imposing faith based political beliefs,
I will repeat my threat to go on hunger strike. Other people may find this tolerable to force laws one way, then challenge and fight after the fact, as part of the political process, but I find it can be smoother and more cost effective to resolve conflicts in advance before passing laws the First time!

Since I have no money to sue to publicize my petition that way, I have offered to either go on hunger strike to demand recognition for equal political beliefs and/or do an online fundraising campaign to bribe me not to go on strike but put the funds directly toward legal mediation to revise laws by consensus so the issues are resolved.

Either way the point is to publicize and teach the importance of recognizing that people's political beliefs are inalienable to them. And it wastes public resources to fight against each other when we could be investing that energy in agreed solutions if we set that as the standard to begin with.

Sneekin because vast resources were spent to push and pass DONT as well as to fight to strike it down, those resources could have been spent solving instead of creating more conflicts to solve. Just settling it does not refund taxpayers for the costs that distract from other reforms we could have pursued with that same time and energy. So that's what I want to argue for, how mediation would save time and trouble as well as build relationships instead of dividing them!

And if you think ACA is settled we must live in different relatives or on different planets. I'm from Texas where all this federal intrusion was taken as an invitation to secede to get away from what is still seen as overreaching of federal govt into states rights.

Maybe I'm top Texan for you but I still see this as unconstitutional and unethical. Yes I totally agree to challenge it and demand reimbursement to taxpayers of trillions spent on ACA payouts to insurance interests I believe Obama and Democrats who voted OWE and should raise or collect and pay back Themselves to set up single payer systems for their constituents they promised this to in fulfilling their advertised belief in health care as a right, or those Democrats are guilty of fraud and misrepresentation !

I totally commit to petitioning or suing for reimbursement of taxpayers money that went into funding the political belief that health care is a right.

 

[rightwinger]

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:
Reclaiming the Rule of Law after Obergefell

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.

This isn't about abortion either. Why can't you make your case without dragging in all sorts of unrelated issues?

That aside, you made the claim that same-sex marriage can be practiced under the freedom to exercise religion. That's complete nonsense and something no one is claiming.

Either quote the portion from the Obergefell decision which sites freedom of religion or admit you have no position to stand on...

Dear Faun The reason is because the OBJECTIONS to gay marriage are coming from a wide range of reasons and sources. That's why I am addressing all the factors.

Same with abortion. There are at least 5 major issues I've found wrapped up in why people support or oppose abortion policies on different levels.

The correct way to address all these is give each factor and reason full attention to resolve ALL the conflicts around it.

Faun it is like a huge knot with layers piled on top, where to untie the knot and straighten it out
takes loosening up each string pulling in every direction. Instead of tightening these
ropes and knots, the goal is to unwrap each one in turn, so we can undo the deadlock.

People generally don't see all the layers.
It is very deep. In forming a consensus, and addressing each and every conflicting factor,
I've had to work backwards and dig up each and every objection and resolve them
in order to establish working relations and understanding with each person.

then we can work together to address which points we feel are the key.

With each person their points may be different!

So just because you throw something out as irrelevant to the legal issue,
doesn't mean that point isn't the real reason someone else is objecting.

By resolving all this, we CAN get to and stick to just the relevant points.
But Faun not everyone is objective on all points.
And the process has involved these other areas that affect
how we respond and process information and communicate that with others.

Thanks for your patience.
This is not as easy as it looks to you.

If we are going to have agreement on enforcing laws,
instead of bullying and harassing over LGBT issues,
this is a very necessary part of the process,
to understand the layers of human perception
that are part of the puzzle.

When we make laws touching on these spiritual issues,
that's what happens, it connects to other areas as well.

Emily

What if I OBJECTED to your marriage for whatever twisted reason

Should the government accommodate my objections out of a sense of being fair to everyone's concerns

1. to keep govt and other people out of marriage, that's why I'm saying to keep marriage out of govt!

PRECISELY rightwinger!

2. and yes, people do not have to recognize each other's "marriage" as in social or spiritual relations as a "couple" in order to honor the civil contracts and rights. Lot of families go through that, it happens. If a father does not accept his daughter marrying some guy he doesn't approve of, the govt cannot make him accept that guy as a "husband." if there is a financial contract, such as the guy owns the car or house his daughter is living in with her husband, of course, the father respects the legal and financial ownership that is secular. But does not have to respect someone "socially as a husband" if the father just doesn't respect that, that's his choice! And it doesn't have to interfere with respecting the guardianship and legal contractual obligations or duties that the guy has with the children. He can still be recognized as legal guardian without being accepted "socially" as the "husband" which is a personal choice.

So for the civil contracts and legal guardianships, that's a secular role. But no, the govt cannot make anyone recognize a social relationship any more than it can make you accept Jesus or God. that's personal choice and not the govt's business.

BTW rightwinger you also asked what harm is done by govt endorsing marriage for all people. the harm is if this isn't established by consent of the people, so it is govt imposing or establishing certain beliefs about marriage FOR the people, instead of the other way, where the people AGREE to form or reform the laws to reflect consent on a policy.

A law that is arrived at by consensus is different in spirit than a law imposed by opposing sides forcing their political will on the other. To make an ironic analogy, rightwinger, it's like the Difference between a marriage by CHOICE or a forced arranged marriage. I'm saying forcing the marriage laws on people where they didn't agree in advance is like a prearranged marriage where the people affected didn't have equal say in it. One partner may be thrilled but the other horrified at the decision. So that coercion causes harm, and it's better to arrive at laws and reforms by consent of all parties affected, especially with sensitive matters!

BTW rightwinger you also asked what harm is done by govt endorsing marriage for all people. the harm is if this isn't established by consent of the people, so it is govt imposing or establishing certain beliefs about marriage FOR the people, instead of the other way, where the people AGREE to form or reform the laws to reflect consent on a policy.

Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for supper

It is not up to government to impose what is most popular, it is to do what is right. Someone has to defend the rights of the sheep
In this case, the majority does not get to decide who you are allowed to fall in love with and who you are allowed to marry.
If someone says a white man marrying a black woman is "yucky"...it is not up to government to enforce it
Same concept applies if a woman wants to marry another woman

 

[emilynghiem]

???

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:
Reclaiming the Rule of Law after Obergefell

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.

This isn't about abortion either. Why can't you make your case without dragging in all sorts of unrelated issues?

That aside, you made the claim that same-sex marriage can be practiced under the freedom to exercise religion. That's complete nonsense and something no one is claiming.

Either quote the portion from the Obergefell decision which sites freedom of religion or admit you have no position to stand on...

Dear Faun The reason is because the OBJECTIONS to gay marriage are coming from a wide range of reasons and sources. That's why I am addressing all the factors.

Same with abortion. There are at least 5 major issues I've found wrapped up in why people support or oppose abortion policies on different levels.

The correct way to address all these is give each factor and reason full attention to resolve ALL the conflicts around it.

Faun it is like a huge knot with layers piled on top, where to untie the knot and straighten it out
takes loosening up each string pulling in every direction. Instead of tightening these
ropes and knots, the goal is to unwrap each one in turn, so we can undo the deadlock.

People generally don't see all the layers.
It is very deep. In forming a consensus, and addressing each and every conflicting factor,
I've had to work backwards and dig up each and every objection and resolve them
in order to establish working relations and understanding with each person.

then we can work together to address which points we feel are the key.

With each person their points may be different!

So just because you throw something out as irrelevant to the legal issue,
doesn't mean that point isn't the real reason someone else is objecting.

By resolving all this, we CAN get to and stick to just the relevant points.
But Faun not everyone is objective on all points.
And the process has involved these other areas that affect
how we respond and process information and communicate that with others.

Thanks for your patience.
This is not as easy as it looks to you.

If we are going to have agreement on enforcing laws,
instead of bullying and harassing over LGBT issues,
this is a very necessary part of the process,
to understand the layers of human perception
that are part of the puzzle.

When we make laws touching on these spiritual issues,
that's what happens, it connects to other areas as well.

Emily

What if I OBJECTED to your marriage for whatever twisted reason

Should the government accommodate my objections out of a sense of being fair to everyone's concerns

1. to keep govt and other people out of marriage, that's why I'm saying to keep marriage out of govt!

PRECISELY rightwinger!

2. and yes, people do not have to recognize each other's "marriage" as in social or spiritual relations as a "couple" in order to honor the civil contracts and rights. Lot of families go through that, it happens. If a father does not accept his daughter marrying some guy he doesn't approve of, the govt cannot make him accept that guy as a "husband." if there is a financial contract, such as the guy owns the car or house his daughter is living in with her husband, of course, the father respects the legal and financial ownership that is secular. But does not have to respect someone "socially as a husband" if the father just doesn't respect that, that's his choice! And it doesn't have to interfere with respecting the guardianship and legal contractual obligations or duties that the guy has with the children. He can still be recognized as legal guardian without being accepted "socially" as the "husband" which is a personal choice.

So for the civil contracts and legal guardianships, that's a secular role. But no, the govt cannot make anyone recognize a social relationship any more than it can make you accept Jesus or God. that's personal choice and not the govt's business.

BTW rightwinger you also asked what harm is done by govt endorsing marriage for all people. the harm is if this isn't established by consent of the people, so it is govt imposing or establishing certain beliefs about marriage FOR the people, instead of the other way, where the people AGREE to form or reform the laws to reflect consent on a policy.

A law that is arrived at by consensus is different in spirit than a law imposed by opposing sides forcing their political will on the other. To make an ironic analogy, rightwinger, it's like the Difference between a marriage by CHOICE or a forced arranged marriage. I'm saying forcing the marriage laws on people where they didn't agree in advance is like a prearranged marriage where the people affected didn't have equal say in it. One partner may be thrilled but the other horrified at the decision. So that coercion causes harm, and it's better to arrive at laws and reforms by consent of all parties affected, especially with sensitive matters!

BTW rightwinger you also asked what harm is done by govt endorsing marriage for all people. the harm is if this isn't established by consent of the people, so it is govt imposing or establishing certain beliefs about marriage FOR the people, instead of the other way, where the people AGREE to form or reform the laws to reflect consent on a policy.

Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for supper

It is not up to government to impose what is most popular, it is to do what is right. Someone has to defend the rights of the sheep
In this case, the majority does not get to decide who you are allowed to fall in love with and who you are allowed to marry.
If someone says a white man marrying a black woman is "yucky"...it is not up to government to enforce it
Same concept applies if a woman wants to marry another woman

rightwinger
And people have to AGREE what's right
Or it's back to govt imposing beliefs on values by "other groups"
Both sides view the other as imposing beliefs, that's why consensus on laws is necessary to address any perceived bias deemed faith based exclusive or discriminating against "one set of beliefs or the other"

 

[emilynghiem]

Nope Faun it's not "gays taking rights from others" but biases in laws that deprive citizens of equal freedom by discriminating by creed. Both sides complain if the other bias is imposed by law. Neither side wants a faith based bias creeping into laws.