Gay marriage is not a constitutional right

[emilynghiem]

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?

If people don't agree on BELIEFS Faun
(and I'm including political beliefs about contested rights
where conflicts are due to BELIEFS EQUALLY Free from govt regulation
under Constitutional rights as well, I'm not nitpicking over
disagreements due to secular differences or personal preferences)
it's in these areas where I'm saying
1. people don't have to agree if we keep these PRIVATE out of govt
2. but if you force the issue like marriage to stay IN govt,
then people HAVE to agree where it involved BELIEFS,
because people's political beliefs are also inherent and can't be forced to change
by govt, not unless people CONSENT to by free will not by force of law.

Now where you and I are missing each other
1. I INCLUDE BOTH people like you who don't see any attachment to marriage but are treating it as civil only, not religious
AND people who automatically have beliefs involved that you don't
2. You are writing and interpreting and depending on laws
EXCLUDING these people you don't understand or agree with
because by YOUR system of thought it isn't affected or relevant
BUT TO THEM IT IS

I INCLUDE BOTH
YOU DO NOT

So that's why I'm arguing that we need laws to
include ALL people where these involve BELIEFS
IF they are going to be PUBLIC and represent ALL PEOPLE
not just people who think and see it as all secular as you do,
but also those who don't see or believe the same as you do.

If these are PUBLIC LAWS then all the public should have
equal say.

And YES, Faun the fact that you and others
don't even frame or see it the same way due to
differences in BELIEFS -- THAT'S THE ISSUE
I'M TRYING TO ADDRESS and include!!!

 

[emilynghiem]

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.

Dear Syriusly the concept of prayer and mediation is also
universal to people of all faiths including agnostics and atheists whose
brains go into a similar mode as others during prayer/mediation etc.

But if we do not AGREE on terms of prayer,
we should not be making govt laws biased one way or another
where other people object because their ways are different due to
faith or culture.

 

[Syriusly]

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.

Dear Syriusly the concept of prayer and mediation is also
universal to people of all faiths including agnostics and atheists whose
brains go into a similar mode as others during prayer/mediation etc.

But if we do not AGREE on terms of prayer,
we should not be making govt laws biased one way or another
where other people object because their ways are different due to
faith or culture.

Universal? Hardly

And none of that has anything to do with marriage.

 

[Sneekin]

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...

Wow - you have so little education, and have told no truths. Nowhere in our marriage laws, nor in the US constitution, does it have ANYTHING to do with reproduction. If that was the case, my father would have had to raise his children alone after his wife died, because my stepmother was unable to have children. So your first point is a lie. However, gay couples can, and do form new society cells. My daughter's PTA had several SS parents with one to many children. Education? Both moral and literal (book learning).

Who is imposing homosexuality or domestic sexual abuse on children? Check your facts again. 97 percent of child abuse is committed by heterosexual parents or family members.

God? Who's that? He's also not referenced in our constitution, but your religion, which you once again try to impose is in the constitution - remember, the US Constitution cannot establish religious law. What a fool you are. Educate yourself.

 

[Sneekin]

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!

That's an offensive statement, seeing how over 90 percent of sexual abuse occurs in heterosexual "traditional" families..... not to mention, are you now saying adults are not responsible for their children and their actions? Better check your law books, bubba. That's another lie. I've worked with and also known (friends and family in SS relationships) that have children, and in every case, have done better jobs than what you refer to as "normal, traditional families". You are entitled to your own opinions, but you are now making up your own facts. This is settled law, and there already have been court cases over gays raising children - and in every one of those cases, gays won. I've been involved in court cases where grandparents have sued their ex son-in-law, who was a custodial parent, and involved in a SS relationship. Every time the mother-in-law's attorney started to produce an excuse, the father's attorney objected, producing state supreme court rulings in favor of the same sex parent, against the person suing. The judge removed the Children and Family Service invesigator for bias, and the father's attorney produced evidence that the grandmother had paid various expenses for the investigator. Sorry, but you just don't have your facts "straight". Children have rights, to a point. Not to mention, once they are 12-14 years old, they can pick the SS parent to live with anyway. Try fact checking.

 

[emilynghiem]

Here Sneekin would it look like this chart.
If people can't agree on political beliefs
then instead of pushing them
from people/state to federal levels
(from right to left side)
then I'm saying organize political beliefs
by groups through each state, then connect
these nationally to have the same collective
advantage as federal govt but without imposing on people
outside that free choice to affiliate, fund and participate
(from left to right, from people across states to national
or even global since it doesn't have to go through federal)

 

[emilynghiem]

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!

That's an offensive statement, seeing how over 90 percent of sexual abuse occurs in heterosexual "traditional" families..... not to mention, are you now saying adults are not responsible for their children and their actions? Better check your law books, bubba. That's another lie. I've worked with and also known (friends and family in SS relationships) that have children, and in every case, have done better jobs than what you refer to as "normal, traditional families". You are entitled to your own opinions, but you are now making up your own facts. This is settled law, and there already have been court cases over gays raising children - and in every one of those cases, gays won. I've been involved in court cases where grandparents have sued their ex son-in-law, who was a custodial parent, and involved in a SS relationship. Every time the mother-in-law's attorney started to produce an excuse, the father's attorney objected, producing state supreme court rulings in favor of the same sex parent, against the person suing. The judge removed the Children and Family Service invesigator for bias, and the father's attorney produced evidence that the grandmother had paid various expenses for the investigator. Sorry, but you just don't have your facts "straight". Children have rights, to a point. Not to mention, once they are 12-14 years old, they can pick the SS parent to live with anyway. Try fact checking.

OK Sneekin no harm intended
I'm okay using a different term besides traditional.

In all these cases, MEDIATION and consensus would protect the rights of the people affected.
it would PREVENT legal abuse of authority
in the cases as you describe where this gets
imbalanced and out of hand.

So that's another reason to require it in cases
where personal beliefs and relations are involved.

 

[Sneekin]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks and sorry if this wasn't clear

There's already a word for it...

Marriage

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

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

I WISH it were that simple Faun I do!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Simply not true, Emily. Nothing is shoved in your face. Your religion is not forced to acknowledge SSM, nor are you. Your religion isn't forced to like or approve of it, and neither or you. You want to name it something different, which violates the constitution. If you can't grasp this, call an attorney. Faun isn't discriminating against anyone, he's STANDING UP FOR THE RIGHTS OF EVERYONE. YOU are the one advocating discrimination. He's never once said other valid beliefs are delusions or deficient - he was referring to both your comments, and the others who claim religion trumps the Constitution, and separate but equal. There is no such thing anymore as SSM and Straight marriage. There is JUST MARRIAGE. Please, try and wrap your mind around it, Emily.

 

[emilynghiem]

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?

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?

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.

Dear Syriusly the concept of prayer and mediation is also
universal to people of all faiths including agnostics and atheists whose
brains go into a similar mode as others during prayer/mediation etc.

But if we do not AGREE on terms of prayer,
we should not be making govt laws biased one way or another
where other people object because their ways are different due to
faith or culture.

Universal? Hardly

And none of that has anything to do with marriage.

Yes Syriusly studies on brains show
that there is universal function in prayer/meditation. we just don't agree on all the terms and means and expressions but the patterns in the brain occur in all people regardless of beliefs.

 

[Sneekin]

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.

waiting for the list of biases. The federal courts have produced 1138 biases in effect until Obergefell, Loving and Windsor were passed. You are quite simply, not telling the truth. That is not discrimination by creed. People of all creeds are able to get married. SSM CANNOT BE IMPOSED ON YOUR RELIGION. Use your eyes and brain, and read Obergefell - your insecurities are addressed.

 

[Sneekin]

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!

That's an offensive statement, seeing how over 90 percent of sexual abuse occurs in heterosexual "traditional" families..... not to mention, are you now saying adults are not responsible for their children and their actions? Better check your law books, bubba. That's another lie. I've worked with and also known (friends and family in SS relationships) that have children, and in every case, have done better jobs than what you refer to as "normal, traditional families". You are entitled to your own opinions, but you are now making up your own facts. This is settled law, and there already have been court cases over gays raising children - and in every one of those cases, gays won. I've been involved in court cases where grandparents have sued their ex son-in-law, who was a custodial parent, and involved in a SS relationship. Every time the mother-in-law's attorney started to produce an excuse, the father's attorney objected, producing state supreme court rulings in favor of the same sex parent, against the person suing. The judge removed the Children and Family Service invesigator for bias, and the father's attorney produced evidence that the grandmother had paid various expenses for the investigator. Sorry, but you just don't have your facts "straight". Children have rights, to a point. Not to mention, once they are 12-14 years old, they can pick the SS parent to live with anyway. Try fact checking.

OK Sneekin no harm intended
I'm okay using a different term besides traditional.

In all these cases, MEDIATION and consensus would protect the rights of the people affected.
it would PREVENT legal abuse of authority
in the cases as you describe where this gets
imbalanced and out of hand.

So that's another reason to require it in cases
where personal beliefs and relations are involved.

Except for the fact you are now trying to abuse our legal system and abuse the law. Requiring what you claim compounds the abuse. Your personal belief one way or another regarding SSM has no impact on race, color, creed, etc. NONE WHATSOEVER, EMILY. You claim we need to make exceptions for "ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL", with caveats - "Democrats can't have guns" "gays can't use the word marriage" "Abortions only for Democreats" - can't you even grasp the fact that your words and proposals VIOLATE the very words of the 14th amendment????

 

[Syriusly]

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.

Dear Syriusly the concept of prayer and mediation is also
universal to people of all faiths including agnostics and atheists whose
brains go into a similar mode as others during prayer/mediation etc.

But if we do not AGREE on terms of prayer,
we should not be making govt laws biased one way or another
where other people object because their ways are different due to
faith or culture.

Universal? Hardly

And none of that has anything to do with marriage.

Yes Syriusly studies on brains show
that there is universal function in prayer/meditation. we just don't agree on all the terms and means and expressions but the patterns in the brain occur in all people regardless of beliefs.

We can't even agree on a universal definition of what prayer or meditation is.

 

[Sneekin]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

With each person their points may be different!

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

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

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

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

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

Emily

What if I OBJECTED to your marriage for whatever twisted reason

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

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

PRECISELY rightwinger!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I see your problem. You have no clue as to what our rights are. You claim you are against intrusion by the government - so - just because I murder someone, I don't want intrusion, so I get to go free. I can't pass a drivers test - but those tests intrude, so I just will drive. I need money, so I'll go to a bank and demand their money - I can't earn that much in an hour, so it's ok.

Read the federal laws regarding Texas seceding - California just did - you, the Texans, and they, the Californians, would each need approval of 100 percent of registered voters, and all registered voters MUST VOTE. And then, they will need approval of the 49 other states. At that point, You can secede - and never come back. And never get another dollar in aid - which is something else you need to check - just how much federal aid y'all get in Texas. Considering Health Care was a bill, and it passed the House, Senate (legislative branch), signed into law by the President (Executive branch), and went through the SCOTUS (judicial branch), how can you claim we as citizens are not entitled to it? It was voted on by every state. It passed by a majority. Y'all agreed to it.

Republican AND Democrats would be guilty of fraud and misrepresentation - although again, even though I know you can't do it, I challenge you to quote specific laws violated in regards to fraud and misrepresentation. Quote from the law itself. Going to quote "You get to keep your doctor"? Read the law - you get to keep your doctor IF your doctor meets the minimal requirements of the ACA. If your doctor didn't, you were going to an incompetent doctor. Your rates went up? Mine were cut in half. More so, when you consider the majority of my copays went from 4-5 dollars down to a dollar.

 

[Sneekin]

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

Offcourse, democracy is a system for society, where everyone can defend own rights - for warriors of Sparta, for Cossacs Round, for Wild West. If you want to defend someone - change the rules, but don't call it as Democracy ))

Ummm - you are embarrassing yourself again. We live in a constitutional republic, not a democracy. Learn to read, fact check this if it helps.

 

[Syriusly]

[
In all these cases, MEDIATION and consensus would protect the rights of the people affected.
.

There is a reason why courts are a recourse when mediation doesn't work- because mediation doesn't always work.

The courts protect the rights of Americans from both legal abuse, and from civil abuse.

I refer once again to Loving v. Virginia- which you keep studiously ignoring.

 

[Sneekin]

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...

Wrong - the Latin word was in use LONG BEFORE the origination of Christianity - several millenia, I'm sure.

 

[Sneekin]

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.

No Faun but neither do you "own the laws" that affect other people also!
Public laws must reflect the PUBLIC consent especially where BELIEFS are involved
or it's imposing a bias. If these are public laws, you and those who believe and think as you do are not the ONLY ones affected by these laws and who have a say in them. If you want total control, then write your own platforms and policies and you are free to live under those similar to private Catholic schools or programs that are prolife or proGod.

When dealing with state laws, these reflect consent of ALL people in that state.
and federal laws with all people of all states across the nation under those laws.

You wouldn't want me imposing my wording using the word "God"
just because I happen to interpret it universally to include atheists and nontheists.
If Atheists and nontheists don't see a term as universal as I do,
of course, it's natural to change and use different terms they can relate to in order to accommodate and include others!

Just because I was brought up by Buddhist parents who didn't object to YMCA being Christian
and Girl Scouts praying to God, doesn't mean ALL people should be "tolerant" the same way.
It's up to each person and I respect that.

Sorry that you don't see that this imposes any issue or bias you don't understand or think affects anyone.

(I will separately post a link to a thread and examples of related cases of conflicts with people
whose beliefs do not allow them to serve gay couples as married.)

Sorry Emily, back to civics class for you. Not the definition of public law. We aren't a democracy, it's not high vote wins, it's everyone's rights are the same. YMCA is an organizational name now, nothing more. No religious tests to join or discount. Girl Scouts in my area don't pray to God, either. Per the area leaders. You need to learn tolerance, you seem to be lacking.

 

[Sneekin]

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.

A. You answered your own question. If there is a law in place under public Accommodations that references sexual orientation, then the business MUST accommodate - period, end of discussion. To do otherwise violates the law, and makes the business liable - they were fined, and had a choice - stop completely, or allow all.
B. Catholic Adoption services - thank you, as this went all the way to the Illinois Supreme Court, and the Attorney General was willing to take it to Federal Court and SCOTUS. The law clearly states that CAS, which receives federal funds, could not discriminate against gays. They used a first amendment "excuse", and were laughed out of court. They were told if they wished to continue as an adoption service, they could, if they didn't receive any federal funds. Since that was almost their entire funding stream, they refused. Illinois terminated their existing contract as soon as alternative agencies were in place, and refused to enter into any new ones.
C. Bakers, Florists, Photographers, candlestick makers - all falls under public accommodation - all or none. They use my roads, my police and fire, my insurance company, my gas and lights, etc etc. They are not a private business/club. If they were a private club, they could discriminate against whoever they want - and open themselves up to a whole new set of rules they have to operate under.

Hope this helps - thanks for referencing actual events going on in my home state, as I already know the outcomes!

 

[Sneekin]

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.

Wrong again, Emily. Marriage, unlike your religious rituals, MUST NOT BE KEPT PRIVATE. If your husband (or wife) is seriously injured, and they need spousal permission, if it's private, then he dies, whether or not you wish him to die. You will pay full tax on your inheritance, since it's "private". It MUST be licensed through the government. It does NOT have to be agreed on by you or anyone else. LAWS are ALREADY IN PLACE. For all of this. Every time you and your Texas cronies try an end run around the constitution, it goes to court, and appealed until your law is overturned - done with abortion and marriage - quite frequently.

Marriage (not civil unions, not domestic partnership) is recognized between states. civil unions (not needed) and domestic partnerships (different rules per partnership) are NOT. You are completely wrong when you claim domestic partnerships and civil unions can be treated differently - civil unions "mimic" marriage to an extent. Domestic partnerships don't, and may only have a few contractual items that make it a partnership. Domestic partnerships are contracts drawn by an attorney, varying between people, and not recognized by other states, and will never be entitled to all of the 1138 benefits in the IRS code - mainly because they aren't even requested in a DP. Civil unions have different rules as well. I'm trying to figure out why you think it's ok for gays to have a DP with 5 equal rights with straights, a civil union with several rights, but not equal rights of marriage. Why do you insist on violating the US Constitution? You claim you can use the 3 terms interchangeably, legally, you cannot. CU's and Marriage require divorces. DP's are simply terminated. Your entire paragraph starting with Nevada is in error (excluding the one fact, that some counties allow prostitution). Here is what is going on in NV:

" Currently eight counties in Nevada have active brothels (these are all rural counties); as of June–July 2008 there were 28 legal brothels in Nevada. Prostitution outside the licensed brothels is illegal throughout Nevada."

Case in point, in only 8 counties out of 18 is it even legal.

Read this slowly, Emily, what we term as civil marriage DOES TREAT ALL PEOPLE THE SAME REGARDLESS OF BELIEFS. Who you marry is controlled by YOU only. Your church isn't told who they can or cannot marry, that is up to the PEOPLE.

Catholic schools in many cases receive funding from the state, and still have to follow certain state or federal mandates. For the child to graduate from a parochial school (don't know why you think you have to pick on just Catholics), they still need to pass state or federal standards (tests). You claim there is full freedom. There is not. That Catholic school can teach 12 years of coloring and singing ONLY, with perhaps listening to hymns and bible verses. That is up to the dioceses. Keep it quiet, by all means. That child will not pass tests, will not pass the ACT/SAT etc, and will not even be able to get into any public or private college. So, dear Emily, you most certainly don't have full freedom. You are bound by the same confines. We don't want this country to be a nation of uneducated idiots, so even "Catholic Schools" have criteria to follow. That is not inject STATE BELIEFS. That is injecting the People's beliefs.

What you claim to be state beliefs (they are not) do not discriminate based on creed. I've asked you for examples at least 8 times now, and you NEVER give examples.

You can complain about bias in belief or creed all you want. That does not mean any euql rights are being violated. As someone who's worked in the field 30 plus years, I can assure you that you don't know what you are talking about. Do you have a clue how many complaints in Texas alone are turned down for Equal Rights Violations that aren't? Between 80 and 90 percent. If you are 25 and I am 50, and we both apply for a job, and we have the same qualifications, only I can file based on age - you cannot. You need to research before you talk.

 

[Sneekin]

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.

Again, Emily, not true. Don't try and practice law without a license, and don't be telling people that all need to be accommodated. Even though abortion is off topic, I will tell you - the only view point is - abortion is legal, any woman can have one. Here are the rules:

"The Supreme Court ruled 7–2 that a right to privacy under the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment extended to a woman's decision to have an abortion, but that this right must be balanced against the state's two legitimate interests in regulating abortions: protecting women's health and protecting the potentiality of human life. Arguing that these state interests became stronger over the course of a pregnancy, the Court resolved this balancing test by tying state regulation of abortion to the third trimester of pregnancy."

This is the ONLY angle that must be accommodated - that the right to privacy (14th Amendment) covers the individual's right to have an abortion. The state can regulate to an extent, ONLY under what has been outlined in the above paragraph. Welcome to 1973, when the decision was made.