Gay marriage is not a constitutional right

[emilynghiem]

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"

OK...so now people have to AGREE what is right

Does every person have to agree with your own marriage in order for it to be legal?
Did you have to obtain a consensus before you were allowed to marry?

What if we can't please everyone.....does that mean you are not allowed to marry either?
.

RE: What if we can't please everyone.....does that mean you are not allowed to marry either?

BTW rightwinger it's not a matter of not marrying
but endorsing it through the govt how we marry or don't marry

If marriage is kept private similar to communion, baptisms, prayer rituals,
inductions into faith, then anyone can still practice anything.
but just not try to incorporate or license it through govt unless we agree on
NEUTRAL universal terms.

These don't have to be the same for all states.

Nevada legalizes and licenses prostitution, doesn't mean all states
have to. Some can treat all domestic partnerships as civil unions,
while other may well recognize them and call them marriages.

The point is either treat all people the same regardless of beliefs,
or remove that wording or policy from govt and keep it private.

Catholic schools and programs run their own policies
and have different terms of priesthood than other churches.
So if you keep things private, you have full freedom.
If you insist on injecting state into beliefs or beliefs into state together,
then anything passed on a state level has to represent those people
and not discriminate on the basis of creed. If people complain about
bias in belief or creed, that is violating equal rights of people also.

 

[Faun]

Faun here are examples where people ARE losing liberties they had before
because of public accommodations laws crossing into BELIEFS about LGBT and
requiring people to respect them or else change their operations policies
(posted on separate thread Should businesses be sued or church adoption programs shut down over gay beliefs?):

A. A lesbian couple wanting to have a wedding reception, Kate and Ming Linsley, sued the Wildflower Inn after being turned away. The lawsuit was settled in August after the inn agreed to pay $30,000 and stop hosting weddings and receptions.

By signing the settlement agreement, the inn owners agreed that any future “disparate treatment of same-sex couples” is illegal, including “discouragement of the couples from using the accommodations, facilities, advantages and privileges of any place of public accommodation.”

Washington has a law already on the books that guarantees “the right to the full enjoyment of any of the accommodations, advantages, facilities, or privileges of any place of public resort, accommodation, assemblage, or amusement” regardless of sexual orientation.

^ NOTE 1 Faun: the same way you are saying nobody is being forced to have a gay wedding,
well nobody is FORCING that couple to use that facility when many other gay friendly services would love to have that business!

NOTE 2 please note my offer of how to solve these issues where the facility can still be used without imposing on staff who don't have to be present:
"BTW how I would solve the business lawsuit cases
1. for the wedding sites, allow this to be rented but require the couple to bring in their own hired staff and pay for insurance to cover any damages to the site if the management does not want to be present at a gay wedding

2. have businesses and customers sign WAIVERS in advance protecting both from legal actions or costs
should there be disputes or conflicts for ANY REASON: require instead either mediation by mediator chosen by the customer, or if that fails, arbitration by arbiter chosen by the business; or else agree to REFRAIN from doing business if the dispute cannot be resolved by consensus of both parties to avoid legal issues or expenses.

This would protect both sides, regardless of the reason, and regardless what their beliefs are that may conflict."

B. RE Catholic adoption services:

"#1 - Catholic adoption agencies should not be "shut down" that don't accommodate gay couples. As private, privately funded, non-profit organizations they should be able to place children according to their religious doctrine. On the other hand if they are going to function under government contractors and function on the taxpayer's dime - then they need to comply with non-discrimination laws or not be eligible for the contract."

Unfortunately this policy HAS led to some adoption services shutting down that depended on govt support. so it has DEPRIVED people of ne eded services due to CLASHING beliefs that COULD have remained a private issue since BELIEFS are involved. [Govt COULD have adopted a NEUTRAL policy protecting ANY beliefs about LGBT orientation/identity from discrimination, instead of recognizing one position on this at the exception of the other, which I argue is biased.]

C. There are other cases of fines against bakers, photographers, and even florists
for not wanting to participate in gay weddings against their beliefs.
Some of these I agree with, some not.
If someone just buys flowers or a cake that is one thing,
but going TO a wedding off site to serve cakes or take photos is up to free choice.
Another business or vendor/contract staff can be sent, and not force people who don't believe in attending or witnessing or participating in certain activities that are BEHAVIOR -- not internal identity of the customer in the store buying or ordering something.

In these cases I would make a distinction between:
1. providing the goods or services to any customer regardless of beliefs or creeds
2. WITHOUT having to attend, witness or participate in the actual gay wedding service
which is BEHAVIOR and not the internalized identity/orientation that the customers have

I would also allow such services to be contracted out to staff who don't have those conflicts,
such as sending a photographer out to an adult party who doesn't mind the BEHAVIOR or THEME of the party
and not suing the people who don't agree to be there

In general I promote mediation and consensus as required to resolve conflicts over beliefs,
if any two parties are going to conduct business together, in order to save legal and public resources related to court actions.

None of that has anything to do with same-sex marriage. You can't make your case so you're continuously diverting to other topics.

The topic here is the constitutionality of same-sex marriage, not public accommodation laws.

Yes, and those are related Faun

If you don't want to affect other public institutions,
then "marriage" should be kept in private.

But if govt endorses certain beliefs about marriage
then this in turn affects other areas of public laws and institutions.

All the other examples I cited are related to govt endorsing BELIEFS about LGBT and marriage.
1. wedding sites and services affected
2. adoption services affected
in addition to what you and I do agree on which is
3. state laws needing to be neutral and void of faith based biases
that one side or the other objects to as not representing their beliefs equally

I guess you are saying these are separate cases,
but I'm saying the SAME arguments and solutions can be used
to resolve ALL of THESE. So why have 3-5 areas of disputes by imposing
one side or the other,
when we can have a resolution across all these cases by agreeing NOT
to discriminate against either sides beliefs?

No, they are not related at all. One is about equal protection and due process while the other is about public accommodation laws. Don't fool yourself into believing no one has noticed you can't prove your position on same-sex marriage, so you keep diverting in all sorts of directions.

 

[emilynghiem]

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"

OK...so now people have to AGREE what is right

Does every person have to agree with your own marriage in order for it to be legal?
Did you have to obtain a consensus before you were allowed to marry?

What if we can't please everyone.....does that mean you are not allowed to marry either?

.

Dear rightwinger with Faith-Based laws, yes, people would have to agree
or else all it takes is one atheist or nonbeliever in that thing to protest that
govt should not establish a faith based bias or belief, and by principle that bias should be removed.

A good example of a faith based concept people happen to agree on:
JUSTICE
Even though this is completely faith-based and never proven or established as existing,
people have faith in it and AGREE to use these terms in our laws
and even inscribe them on public buildings.
Nobody complains because we AGREE on this even though it is FAITH BASED.

But when it comes to retributive justice and restorative justice,
no, people do not agree. thus we have fights going on over
the death penalty and taxpayers funding life imprisonment instead of executions etc.
I am asking to separate funding on that issue also!

Similar with abortion.
We generally agree murder is unlawful and punishable as a crime.
but some people believe abortion is murder, and others do not.
Until we agree on how to write or separate laws,
groups have be en fighting over this to defend their beliefs from each other's.

How cruel is this suffering and how long are we going to let it go on,
knowing neither side agrees to biases in laws by the other?

That's why I argue to separate funding by party,
set up separate representation and programs where people
do not feel threatened by any other group dictating their beliefs.
If political and/or religious beliefs prevent agreement on public laws,
then set up separate means similar to private religious schools
and treat partisan programs like private religious programs.
So people can get the same tax breaks for investing in their
own policies if the rest of the public doesn't agree to fund them.

The US does not have faith based laws nor should it

Why can't you answer the simple questions I asked?
Why do I get a 300 word diatribe on something unrelated to what I posted?

Now.....
Does every person have to agree with your own marriage in order for it to be legal?
Did you have to obtain a consensus before you were allowed to marry?

What if we can't please everyone.....does that mean you are not allowed to marry either?

rightwinger they have to agree with each other
where marriage or other beliefs get mixed in with public policy

I don't have a say in other state laws, but I can have equal
voice in Texas law or Houston or Democratic Party if that's how we decide how to manage policies
and benefits. I prefer by party, but others may want it through state.

 

[Faun]

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"

OK...so now people have to AGREE what is right

Does every person have to agree with your own marriage in order for it to be legal?
Did you have to obtain a consensus before you were allowed to marry?

What if we can't please everyone.....does that mean you are not allowed to marry either?

.

Dear rightwinger with Faith-Based laws, yes, people would have to agree
or else all it takes is one atheist or nonbeliever in that thing to protest that
govt should not establish a faith based bias or belief, and by principle that bias should be removed.

A good example of a faith based concept people happen to agree on:
JUSTICE
Even though this is completely faith-based and never proven or established as existing,
people have faith in it and AGREE to use these terms in our laws
and even inscribe them on public buildings.
Nobody complains because we AGREE on this even though it is FAITH BASED.

But when it comes to retributive justice and restorative justice,
no, people do not agree. thus we have fights going on over
the death penalty and taxpayers funding life imprisonment instead of executions etc.
I am asking to separate funding on that issue also!

Similar with abortion.
We generally agree murder is unlawful and punishable as a crime.
but some people believe abortion is murder, and others do not.
Until we agree on how to write or separate laws,
groups have be en fighting over this to defend their beliefs from each other's.

How cruel is this suffering and how long are we going to let it go on,
knowing neither side agrees to biases in laws by the other?

That's why I argue to separate funding by party,
set up separate representation and programs where people
do not feel threatened by any other group dictating their beliefs.
If political and/or religious beliefs prevent agreement on public laws,
then set up separate means similar to private religious schools
and treat partisan programs like private religious programs.
So people can get the same tax breaks for investing in their
own policies if the rest of the public doesn't agree to fund them.

The US does not have faith based laws nor should it

Why can't you answer the simple questions I asked?
Why do I get a 300 word diatribe on something unrelated to what I posted?

Now.....
Does every person have to agree with your own marriage in order for it to be legal?
Did you have to obtain a consensus before you were allowed to marry?

What if we can't please everyone.....does that mean you are not allowed to marry either?

She's not answering your question because she doesn't like the answer.

 

[rightwinger]

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"

OK...so now people have to AGREE what is right

Does every person have to agree with your own marriage in order for it to be legal?
Did you have to obtain a consensus before you were allowed to marry?

What if we can't please everyone.....does that mean you are not allowed to marry either?
.

RE: What if we can't please everyone.....does that mean you are not allowed to marry either?

BTW rightwinger it's not a matter of not marrying
but endorsing it through the govt how we marry or don't marry

If marriage is kept private similar to communion, baptisms, prayer rituals,
inductions into faith, then anyone can still practice anything.
but just not try to incorporate or license it through govt unless we agree on
NEUTRAL universal terms.

These don't have to be the same for all states.

Nevada legalizes and licenses prostitution, doesn't mean all states
have to. Some can treat all domestic partnerships as civil unions,
while other may well recognize them and call them marriages.

The point is either treat all people the same regardless of beliefs,
or remove that wording or policy from govt and keep it private.

Catholic schools and programs run their own policies
and have different terms of priesthood than other churches.
So if you keep things private, you have full freedom.
If you insist on injecting state into beliefs or beliefs into state together,
then anything passed on a state level has to represent those people
and not discriminate on the basis of creed. If people complain about
bias in belief or creed, that is violating equal rights of people also.

200 words and you still don't answer a simple question

Emily....Do you speak like you write?

If someone says "Good morning Emily, how are you?"
Do they get a five minute response on something totally unrelated?

 

[Faun]

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"

OK...so now people have to AGREE what is right

Does every person have to agree with your own marriage in order for it to be legal?
Did you have to obtain a consensus before you were allowed to marry?

What if we can't please everyone.....does that mean you are not allowed to marry either?
.

RE: What if we can't please everyone.....does that mean you are not allowed to marry either?

BTW rightwinger it's not a matter of not marrying
but endorsing it through the govt how we marry or don't marry

If marriage is kept private similar to communion, baptisms, prayer rituals,
inductions into faith, then anyone can still practice anything.
but just not try to incorporate or license it through govt unless we agree on
NEUTRAL universal terms.

These don't have to be the same for all states.

Nevada legalizes and licenses prostitution, doesn't mean all states
have to. Some can treat all domestic partnerships as civil unions,
while other may well recognize them and call them marriages.

The point is either treat all people the same regardless of beliefs,
or remove that wording or policy from govt and keep it private.

Catholic schools and programs run their own policies
and have different terms of priesthood than other churches.
So if you keep things private, you have full freedom.
If you insist on injecting state into beliefs or beliefs into state together,
then anything passed on a state level has to represent those people
and not discriminate on the basis of creed. If people complain about
bias in belief or creed, that is violating equal rights of people also.

More diversions. Civil marriage is not a private act like baptism insofar it requires a public record. Since the government is involved in issuing marriage licenses, they have to do so for everyone who complies, which includes people seeking to marry someone of their same gender. That's equal protection. And we're not getting rid of marriage because some folks find that offensive.

 

[emilynghiem]

Faun here are examples where people ARE losing liberties they had before
because of public accommodations laws crossing into BELIEFS about LGBT and
requiring people to respect them or else change their operations policies
(posted on separate thread Should businesses be sued or church adoption programs shut down over gay beliefs?):

A. A lesbian couple wanting to have a wedding reception, Kate and Ming Linsley, sued the Wildflower Inn after being turned away. The lawsuit was settled in August after the inn agreed to pay $30,000 and stop hosting weddings and receptions.

By signing the settlement agreement, the inn owners agreed that any future “disparate treatment of same-sex couples” is illegal, including “discouragement of the couples from using the accommodations, facilities, advantages and privileges of any place of public accommodation.”

Washington has a law already on the books that guarantees “the right to the full enjoyment of any of the accommodations, advantages, facilities, or privileges of any place of public resort, accommodation, assemblage, or amusement” regardless of sexual orientation.

^ NOTE 1 Faun: the same way you are saying nobody is being forced to have a gay wedding,
well nobody is FORCING that couple to use that facility when many other gay friendly services would love to have that business!

NOTE 2 please note my offer of how to solve these issues where the facility can still be used without imposing on staff who don't have to be present:
"BTW how I would solve the business lawsuit cases
1. for the wedding sites, allow this to be rented but require the couple to bring in their own hired staff and pay for insurance to cover any damages to the site if the management does not want to be present at a gay wedding

2. have businesses and customers sign WAIVERS in advance protecting both from legal actions or costs
should there be disputes or conflicts for ANY REASON: require instead either mediation by mediator chosen by the customer, or if that fails, arbitration by arbiter chosen by the business; or else agree to REFRAIN from doing business if the dispute cannot be resolved by consensus of both parties to avoid legal issues or expenses.

This would protect both sides, regardless of the reason, and regardless what their beliefs are that may conflict."

B. RE Catholic adoption services:

"#1 - Catholic adoption agencies should not be "shut down" that don't accommodate gay couples. As private, privately funded, non-profit organizations they should be able to place children according to their religious doctrine. On the other hand if they are going to function under government contractors and function on the taxpayer's dime - then they need to comply with non-discrimination laws or not be eligible for the contract."

Unfortunately this policy HAS led to some adoption services shutting down that depended on govt support. so it has DEPRIVED people of ne eded services due to CLASHING beliefs that COULD have remained a private issue since BELIEFS are involved. [Govt COULD have adopted a NEUTRAL policy protecting ANY beliefs about LGBT orientation/identity from discrimination, instead of recognizing one position on this at the exception of the other, which I argue is biased.]

C. There are other cases of fines against bakers, photographers, and even florists
for not wanting to participate in gay weddings against their beliefs.
Some of these I agree with, some not.
If someone just buys flowers or a cake that is one thing,
but going TO a wedding off site to serve cakes or take photos is up to free choice.
Another business or vendor/contract staff can be sent, and not force people who don't believe in attending or witnessing or participating in certain activities that are BEHAVIOR -- not internal identity of the customer in the store buying or ordering something.

In these cases I would make a distinction between:
1. providing the goods or services to any customer regardless of beliefs or creeds
2. WITHOUT having to attend, witness or participate in the actual gay wedding service
which is BEHAVIOR and not the internalized identity/orientation that the customers have

I would also allow such services to be contracted out to staff who don't have those conflicts,
such as sending a photographer out to an adult party who doesn't mind the BEHAVIOR or THEME of the party
and not suing the people who don't agree to be there

In general I promote mediation and consensus as required to resolve conflicts over beliefs,
if any two parties are going to conduct business together, in order to save legal and public resources related to court actions.

None of that has anything to do with same-sex marriage. You can't make your case so you're continuously diverting to other topics.

The topic here is the constitutionality of same-sex marriage, not public accommodation laws.

Yes, and those are related Faun

If you don't want to affect other public institutions,
then "marriage" should be kept in private.

But if govt endorses certain beliefs about marriage
then this in turn affects other areas of public laws and institutions.

All the other examples I cited are related to govt endorsing BELIEFS about LGBT and marriage.
1. wedding sites and services affected
2. adoption services affected
in addition to what you and I do agree on which is
3. state laws needing to be neutral and void of faith based biases
that one side or the other objects to as not representing their beliefs equally

I guess you are saying these are separate cases,
but I'm saying the SAME arguments and solutions can be used
to resolve ALL of THESE. So why have 3-5 areas of disputes by imposing
one side or the other,
when we can have a resolution across all these cases by agreeing NOT
to discriminate against either sides beliefs?

No, they are not related at all. One is about equal protection and due process while the other is about public accommodation laws. Don't fool yourself into believing no one has noticed you can't prove your position on same-sex marriage, so you keep diverting in all sorts of directions.

Dear Faun
1. I already said that BELIEFS about same sex marriage are already protected from each other
by the First and Fourteenth Amendments and Civil Rights policies against discrimination by creed

2. these are not diversions. I am saying the SAME concepts apply to all these other areas.

So solving one problem solves them all.
The problem is not recognizing political beliefs as equal.

You only want to defend your beliefs and rights
but you don't recognize the same of others.

Whose fault is that?
Why are you blaming me for your inability to accommodate others?

I am trying to accommodate you and your beliefs.
Your messages are about trying to debunk and EXCLUDE or dismiss my beliefs.

So who is doing the discriminating here?
You are arguing why you should exclude
"unless I prove to you why should something be included".

I am arguing how to include everyone equally!

You are basically assuming other positions are false until proven true,
while holding your position as true unless proven false.

I am assuming all beliefs are true, and trying to include them all.

Do you see the difference?

 

[emilynghiem]

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"

OK...so now people have to AGREE what is right

Does every person have to agree with your own marriage in order for it to be legal?
Did you have to obtain a consensus before you were allowed to marry?

What if we can't please everyone.....does that mean you are not allowed to marry either?
.

RE: What if we can't please everyone.....does that mean you are not allowed to marry either?

BTW rightwinger it's not a matter of not marrying
but endorsing it through the govt how we marry or don't marry

If marriage is kept private similar to communion, baptisms, prayer rituals,
inductions into faith, then anyone can still practice anything.
but just not try to incorporate or license it through govt unless we agree on
NEUTRAL universal terms.

These don't have to be the same for all states.

Nevada legalizes and licenses prostitution, doesn't mean all states
have to. Some can treat all domestic partnerships as civil unions,
while other may well recognize them and call them marriages.

The point is either treat all people the same regardless of beliefs,
or remove that wording or policy from govt and keep it private.

Catholic schools and programs run their own policies
and have different terms of priesthood than other churches.
So if you keep things private, you have full freedom.
If you insist on injecting state into beliefs or beliefs into state together,
then anything passed on a state level has to represent those people
and not discriminate on the basis of creed. If people complain about
bias in belief or creed, that is violating equal rights of people also.

200 words and you still don't answer a simple question

Emily....Do you speak like you write?

If someone says "Good morning Emily, how are you?"
Do they get a five minute response on something totally unrelated?

Yes, people do complain about that.

Because I include viewpoints of others equally in public policy,
then if you ask about abortion you can get about 5 different angles
that I would say all need to be accommodated in abortion laws.

 

[Faun]

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"

OK...so now people have to AGREE what is right

Does every person have to agree with your own marriage in order for it to be legal?
Did you have to obtain a consensus before you were allowed to marry?

What if we can't please everyone.....does that mean you are not allowed to marry either?

.

Dear rightwinger with Faith-Based laws, yes, people would have to agree
or else all it takes is one atheist or nonbeliever in that thing to protest that
govt should not establish a faith based bias or belief, and by principle that bias should be removed.

A good example of a faith based concept people happen to agree on:
JUSTICE
Even though this is completely faith-based and never proven or established as existing,
people have faith in it and AGREE to use these terms in our laws
and even inscribe them on public buildings.
Nobody complains because we AGREE on this even though it is FAITH BASED.

But when it comes to retributive justice and restorative justice,
no, people do not agree. thus we have fights going on over
the death penalty and taxpayers funding life imprisonment instead of executions etc.
I am asking to separate funding on that issue also!

Similar with abortion.
We generally agree murder is unlawful and punishable as a crime.
but some people believe abortion is murder, and others do not.
Until we agree on how to write or separate laws,
groups have be en fighting over this to defend their beliefs from each other's.

How cruel is this suffering and how long are we going to let it go on,
knowing neither side agrees to biases in laws by the other?

That's why I argue to separate funding by party,
set up separate representation and programs where people
do not feel threatened by any other group dictating their beliefs.
If political and/or religious beliefs prevent agreement on public laws,
then set up separate means similar to private religious schools
and treat partisan programs like private religious programs.
So people can get the same tax breaks for investing in their
own policies if the rest of the public doesn't agree to fund them.

The US does not have faith based laws nor should it

Why can't you answer the simple questions I asked?
Why do I get a 300 word diatribe on something unrelated to what I posted?

Now.....
Does every person have to agree with your own marriage in order for it to be legal?
Did you have to obtain a consensus before you were allowed to marry?

What if we can't please everyone.....does that mean you are not allowed to marry either?

rightwinger they have to agree with each other
where marriage or other beliefs get mixed in with public policy

I don't have a say in other state laws, but I can have equal
voice in Texas law or Houston or Democratic Party if that's how we decide how to manage policies
and benefits. I prefer by party, but others may want it through state.

There need not be agreement. Where do you get this nonsense from? Why are your rights dependent upon my approval?

 

[Faun]

Faun here are examples where people ARE losing liberties they had before
because of public accommodations laws crossing into BELIEFS about LGBT and
requiring people to respect them or else change their operations policies
(posted on separate thread Should businesses be sued or church adoption programs shut down over gay beliefs?):

A. A lesbian couple wanting to have a wedding reception, Kate and Ming Linsley, sued the Wildflower Inn after being turned away. The lawsuit was settled in August after the inn agreed to pay $30,000 and stop hosting weddings and receptions.

By signing the settlement agreement, the inn owners agreed that any future “disparate treatment of same-sex couples” is illegal, including “discouragement of the couples from using the accommodations, facilities, advantages and privileges of any place of public accommodation.”

Washington has a law already on the books that guarantees “the right to the full enjoyment of any of the accommodations, advantages, facilities, or privileges of any place of public resort, accommodation, assemblage, or amusement” regardless of sexual orientation.

^ NOTE 1 Faun: the same way you are saying nobody is being forced to have a gay wedding,
well nobody is FORCING that couple to use that facility when many other gay friendly services would love to have that business!

NOTE 2 please note my offer of how to solve these issues where the facility can still be used without imposing on staff who don't have to be present:
"BTW how I would solve the business lawsuit cases
1. for the wedding sites, allow this to be rented but require the couple to bring in their own hired staff and pay for insurance to cover any damages to the site if the management does not want to be present at a gay wedding

2. have businesses and customers sign WAIVERS in advance protecting both from legal actions or costs
should there be disputes or conflicts for ANY REASON: require instead either mediation by mediator chosen by the customer, or if that fails, arbitration by arbiter chosen by the business; or else agree to REFRAIN from doing business if the dispute cannot be resolved by consensus of both parties to avoid legal issues or expenses.

This would protect both sides, regardless of the reason, and regardless what their beliefs are that may conflict."

B. RE Catholic adoption services:

"#1 - Catholic adoption agencies should not be "shut down" that don't accommodate gay couples. As private, privately funded, non-profit organizations they should be able to place children according to their religious doctrine. On the other hand if they are going to function under government contractors and function on the taxpayer's dime - then they need to comply with non-discrimination laws or not be eligible for the contract."

Unfortunately this policy HAS led to some adoption services shutting down that depended on govt support. so it has DEPRIVED people of ne eded services due to CLASHING beliefs that COULD have remained a private issue since BELIEFS are involved. [Govt COULD have adopted a NEUTRAL policy protecting ANY beliefs about LGBT orientation/identity from discrimination, instead of recognizing one position on this at the exception of the other, which I argue is biased.]

C. There are other cases of fines against bakers, photographers, and even florists
for not wanting to participate in gay weddings against their beliefs.
Some of these I agree with, some not.
If someone just buys flowers or a cake that is one thing,
but going TO a wedding off site to serve cakes or take photos is up to free choice.
Another business or vendor/contract staff can be sent, and not force people who don't believe in attending or witnessing or participating in certain activities that are BEHAVIOR -- not internal identity of the customer in the store buying or ordering something.

In these cases I would make a distinction between:
1. providing the goods or services to any customer regardless of beliefs or creeds
2. WITHOUT having to attend, witness or participate in the actual gay wedding service
which is BEHAVIOR and not the internalized identity/orientation that the customers have

I would also allow such services to be contracted out to staff who don't have those conflicts,
such as sending a photographer out to an adult party who doesn't mind the BEHAVIOR or THEME of the party
and not suing the people who don't agree to be there

In general I promote mediation and consensus as required to resolve conflicts over beliefs,
if any two parties are going to conduct business together, in order to save legal and public resources related to court actions.

None of that has anything to do with same-sex marriage. You can't make your case so you're continuously diverting to other topics.

The topic here is the constitutionality of same-sex marriage, not public accommodation laws.

Yes, and those are related Faun

If you don't want to affect other public institutions,
then "marriage" should be kept in private.

But if govt endorses certain beliefs about marriage
then this in turn affects other areas of public laws and institutions.

All the other examples I cited are related to govt endorsing BELIEFS about LGBT and marriage.
1. wedding sites and services affected
2. adoption services affected
in addition to what you and I do agree on which is
3. state laws needing to be neutral and void of faith based biases
that one side or the other objects to as not representing their beliefs equally

I guess you are saying these are separate cases,
but I'm saying the SAME arguments and solutions can be used
to resolve ALL of THESE. So why have 3-5 areas of disputes by imposing
one side or the other,
when we can have a resolution across all these cases by agreeing NOT
to discriminate against either sides beliefs?

No, they are not related at all. One is about equal protection and due process while the other is about public accommodation laws. Don't fool yourself into believing no one has noticed you can't prove your position on same-sex marriage, so you keep diverting in all sorts of directions.

Dear Faun
1. I already said that BELIEFS about same sex marriage are already protected from each other
by the First and Fourteenth Amendments and Civil Rights policies against discrimination by creed

2. these are not diversions. I am saying the SAME concepts apply to all these other areas.

So solving one problem solves them all.
The problem is not recognizing political beliefs as equal.

You only want to defend your beliefs and rights
but you don't recognize the same of others.

Whose fault is that?
Why are you blaming me for your inability to accommodate others?

I am trying to accommodate you and your beliefs.
Your messages are about trying to debunk and EXCLUDE or dismiss my beliefs.

So who is doing the discriminating here?
You are arguing why you should exclude
"unless I prove to you why should something be included".

I am arguing how to include everyone equally!

You are basically assuming other positions are false until proven true,
while holding your position as true unless proven false.

I am assuming all beliefs are true, and trying to include them all.

Do you see the difference?

There is nothing in the First Amendment protecting same-sex marriage. That's where you go off the rails every single time and why you're perplexed over the legality of Obergefell.

 

[Syriusly]

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...

Marriage is a right- but with marriage does come obligations.

What is the purpose of 'official marriage'? It is a legal recognition of a contract between two people- a contract that society believes benefits our society.

I love this description from a famous Supreme Court case


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."

 

[Syriusly]

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!

What about children when it comes to marriage? Children do have rights- but our society has not recognized that children have a right to two married parents of any gender.

In the United States married parents can divorce without any stated reason- no fault divorce- and children have no right to prevent a divorce.

"normal traditional family'? What is that exactly? The majority of children not in a 'normal traditional family' are children whose parents have divorced, or who have had one or both parents abandon them. You are arbitrarily applying a different standard to gay parents than you apply to straight parents.

If you are concerned about children having two parents- why aren't you advocating for helping the majority of children without two parents? The children of divorce and abandonment?

 

[Syriusly]

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"...

How are the rights of any 'religious people' being taken away? No one is forcing any 'religious people' into gay marriage. No one is forcing them to have 'gay marriages' in their church.

And what about the religious gays who belong to a church that does allow gay marriage? Why would you deny them their religious beliefs?

The majority of Americans believe in marriage equality. That isn't the reason why gay couples have the right to marry each other- but it is a recognition that the majority of Americans have reached the same place as the law.

 

[Syriusly]

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...

Correction- some religious folks are upset about 'gay marriage'- not all.

Civil marriage is civil marriage- why would Christians be any more upset at the civil marriage of a gay couple than they would be of Donald Trump marrying for the third time?(check out what Jesus says about remarriage after divorce- which by the way is a sin according to the Catholic Church) Or of two Jews marrying, or of two Hindu's marrying?

 

[Syriusly]

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?!

Christians have every right to marry within their church- or they can have a civil marriage.
Gay Christians who belong to some churches have the right to marry within their church- or they can have a civil marriage.

No rights have been taken away from anyone- instead- just as in Loving v. Virginia- the marriage rights of more Americans have been recognized.

 

[Syriusly]

[
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!

Christians didn't invent marriage- marriage predates Christianity- and is hardly unique to Christianity.

Let us use your 'pork' example- you essentially are saying that everyone should be prevented from eating pork because Jews and Muslims believe that eating pork is sinful.

We are saying that even if some religious are against eating pork, decisions on what to eat is a personal and civil matter, that we get to decide regardless of what people of some religions should be eaten.

 

[Syriusly]

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.

I refer to Loving v. Virginia again.

 

[Syriusly]

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"

And again- Loving v. Virginia.

If people have to agree what's right, mixed race couples would not have been able to legally marry in Virginia for at least another 20 years- and maybe not ever.

 

[Syriusly]

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!

Sorry, but Christians do not own the word, "marriage."

Marriage is a right and there is no compelling interest to deny gay people of that fundamental right.

The most part of modern marriage tradition - rutial, official record about and so on - was developed inside a Christian tradition. The word "marriage" came to English language from Latin, approximately in XIII century, through Christian books. So, using word "marriage" for gay enterntainment - just a kind of theft...

No one is using the word 'marriage' for 'gay entertainment- except you.

Marriage existed before Christianity and has always existed outside of Christianity. Which is why Jews and Muslims and Hindu's and Buddhists, etc can marry.

The word "marriage' comes from Latin- 'maritare'- and predates Christianity in Rome.

 

[rightwinger]

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"

OK...so now people have to AGREE what is right

Does every person have to agree with your own marriage in order for it to be legal?
Did you have to obtain a consensus before you were allowed to marry?

What if we can't please everyone.....does that mean you are not allowed to marry either?
.

RE: What if we can't please everyone.....does that mean you are not allowed to marry either?

BTW rightwinger it's not a matter of not marrying
but endorsing it through the govt how we marry or don't marry

If marriage is kept private similar to communion, baptisms, prayer rituals,
inductions into faith, then anyone can still practice anything.
but just not try to incorporate or license it through govt unless we agree on
NEUTRAL universal terms.

These don't have to be the same for all states.

Nevada legalizes and licenses prostitution, doesn't mean all states
have to. Some can treat all domestic partnerships as civil unions,
while other may well recognize them and call them marriages.

The point is either treat all people the same regardless of beliefs,
or remove that wording or policy from govt and keep it private.

Catholic schools and programs run their own policies
and have different terms of priesthood than other churches.
So if you keep things private, you have full freedom.
If you insist on injecting state into beliefs or beliefs into state together,
then anything passed on a state level has to represent those people
and not discriminate on the basis of creed. If people complain about
bias in belief or creed, that is violating equal rights of people also.

200 words and you still don't answer a simple question

Emily....Do you speak like you write?

If someone says "Good morning Emily, how are you?"
Do they get a five minute response on something totally unrelated?

Yes, people do complain about that.

Because I include viewpoints of others equally in public policy,
then if you ask about abortion you can get about 5 different angles
that I would say all need to be accommodated in abortion laws.

Emily
You seem like a very nice lady.....but I suspect you are a little nuts

None of what you are saying makes any sense, none of it can be practically applied and all of it is blatantly unconstitutional