Even on this you are wrong. The Democratic Party can outlaw gay marriage, Emily can outlaw gay marriage, Houston can outlaw gay marriage, and Texas can outlaw gay marriage. Of course, you don't have an equal voice, if you think that your voice means anything in this case. It violates FEDERAL law. I don't care how you manage policies. If you are the lone voice in the wilderness, you "might" be heard (but not by the entire state, and probably not even by all of Houston), but it has ZERO effect on the outcome.
Navigation
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
More options
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Gay marriage is not a constitutional right
- Thread starter IndependantAce
- Start date
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.[/QUOTE]
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?[/QUOTE]
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.[/QUOTE]
There need not be agreement. Where do you get this nonsense from? Why are your rights dependent upon my approval?[/QUOTE]
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!!![/QUOTE]
Wrong Again, Emily.
1. Laws aren't Public AND Private. They apply to ALL persons equally.
2. You are the only person trying to state that marriage doesn't fit into public law, into government. People already agreed, you refuse to even read current law. So drop it until you do. People all agree - two people can get married. Which is ALL that marriage law states. Nothing more. It used to state opposite sex only, but was determined to be in VIOLATION of the FOURTEEN AMENDMENT. You claim people are FORCED to be married? You need to put on your listening ears, Emily.
99.9999999 percent of all marriages performed in the US are CIVIL MARRIAGE. The remainder are religious only. And that would basically encompass just the gay people that got married by a pastor only, in states that prohibited SSM, and didn't have the civil portion where the license was signed. If YOU are married, Emily, you are CIVILLY MARRIED.
No one, I repeat NO ONE is saying marriage is civil only. We are stating that under US Code, Marriage is a contract between TWO people meeting pre-defined guidelines. Nowhere in that code is religion mentioned. Try reading the 14th amendment, which overturned gay marriage in Texas. It will open your eyes. No one (but possibly you) is trying to exclude people. And you are doing a p_ss poor job of hiding your dislikes.
No one (but you) are writing, and interpreting and depending on laws excluding people that YOU don't understand. The rest of us understands that current state code and national codes all people to get married, without your interference.
You do not include both, WE DO. You don't want gay marriage, the rest of us call it what it is, not gay marriage, not straight marriage, but MARRIAGE. CIVIL MARRIAGE. You and your church can hate gays, love gays, hate blacks, love blacks, we don't really care what you want. We do know the law. You still do not.
All people are included in the law - YOU HAVE REPEATEDLY STATED YOU DO NOT WANT THE LAWS TO COVER ALL. You want civil unions or DP's for gays. Not going to happen, and I told you why at least 5-10 times.
ALL LAWS ARE PUBLIC!!! ALL LAWS ARE SECULAR!!!! According to the first amendment, Emily, THEY MUST BE! Or did I fall asleep, and did the constitution and all it's amendments get overturned today?
Faun explained this to you at least twice. I'm too sick and tired of repeating the same things over and over. We don't need to mediate when YOU BREAK THE LAW. We apply appropriate penalties to you. Please tell me in the case I referenced where it was imbalanced and out of hand. Actually, not imbalanced, nor out of hand. Intelligent Judge, Intelligent Atty. Legal abuse of authority? In what way?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.Irrelevant.What is the main purpose of marriage?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.
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!
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.
- Aug 4, 2009
- 281,893
- 145,202
- 2,615
[
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.
How on earth do you "mediate" same sex marriage?
Who do you expect to mediate with......the bigots?
OMG - what you are calling for IS ILLEGAL. How old are you? Do you realize that prior to the 70's, we had dixiecrats (democrats) that were more right wing conservative than republicans? We had republicans that were to the left of democrats, because the makeup in a lot of places was white color V blue color (union). Both had leftists and rightists. The parties didn't change overnight, they changed as persons left office in various states. There are caps on donations to dems and republicans - aren't you aware of any of these things? if it's people across states to National (or even global), since it doesn't have to go through federal...hmmm - you do realize that national and federal are the same, and people don't vote on national, federal and global issues? We have an electoral college. It elects the POTUS/VPOTUS, not you. Think before you talk, validate your statements, and then don't put them down here when you discover you are asking for illegal laws and actions.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)
View attachment 100341
What mean by delusion n
What I mean by delusional Faun is that you thought people who saw marriage in the civil context as something "other than secular civil marriage" was "hallucinating" or "delusional"
In other words you don't count their input or the impact on them as VALID.
That's how I read what you said.
That you didn't think the law or wording of it needed to change to accommodate people who don't see it as just "civil marriage"
Do you treat their objections equally to your objections if the laws exclude or offend or discriminate by your standards?
I apologize Faun if you are not dismissing or discounting objections as invalid.
That's what it sounded like is your whole point. You believe those laws are NOT imposing NOT affecting NOT harming or forming or discriminating in any way.
So any objections claiming those laws are biased or imposing or establishing some kind of belief -- you were saying these are hallucinations that you are not responsible for if people "don't get this is about civil marriage and not anything religious"
Isn't that close enough to what you meant?
You think people are imagining in their heads that these laws affect them that you see as only allowing others to get married and you see as NOT imposing or forcing beliefs to change.
When I try to explain that these laws are seen as imposing a faith based bias, you don't see how, so that is why you said that must be hallucinations in people's minds because you don't see how anything is being forced or imposed.
We've been over this already....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!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.There's already a word for it...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
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!
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.
Crosses are not allowed on public property because doing so violates the First Amendment.
You failed to show how same-sex marriage violates the Constitution, remember? All you can show is that it upsets some people; but as has been explained to you repeatedly -- we don't have laws to reflect people's hurt feelings.
You're delirious. I never said anyone was delusional or deficient for opposing gay marriage.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.
What I mean by delusional Faun is that you thought people who saw marriage in the civil context as something "other than secular civil marriage" was "hallucinating" or "delusional"
In other words you don't count their input or the impact on them as VALID.
That's how I read what you said.
That you didn't think the law or wording of it needed to change to accommodate people who don't see it as just "civil marriage"
Do you treat their objections equally to your objections if the laws exclude or offend or discriminate by your standards?
I apologize Faun if you are not dismissing or discounting objections as invalid.
That's what it sounded like is your whole point. You believe those laws are NOT imposing NOT affecting NOT harming or forming or discriminating in any way.
So any objections claiming those laws are biased or imposing or establishing some kind of belief -- you were saying these are hallucinations that you are not responsible for if people "don't get this is about civil marriage and not anything religious"
Isn't that close enough to what you meant?
You think people are imagining in their heads that these laws affect them that you see as only allowing others to get married and you see as NOT imposing or forcing beliefs to change.
When I try to explain that these laws are seen as imposing a faith based bias, you don't see how, so that is why you said that must be hallucinations in people's minds because you don't see how anything is being forced or imposed.
Dear rightwinger[
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.
How on earth do you "mediate" same sex marriage?
Who do you expect to mediate with......the bigots?
As Faun and I both agree the civil laws are intended to be about the civil contracts only, we would mediate between people and parties of the diverse viewpoints and make sure the language is neutral and acceptable to all. If people do not agree on social benefits through govt laws, we could even agree to separate those as choices for taxpayers to opt in or out of. Many people have beliefs about social benefits through state not federal, or through private means.
So that's another option that people or parties could agree to manage separately rather than force or ban beliefs about what programs to fund. Since people of like beliefs tend to organize by party, I think that's a natural way we could separate social taxation and have equal representation without imposing on each other's beliefs or priorities .
- Aug 4, 2009
- 281,893
- 145,202
- 2,615
Dear rightwinger[
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.
How on earth do you "mediate" same sex marriage?
Who do you expect to mediate with......the bigots?
As Faun and I both agree the civil laws are intended to be about the civil contracts only, we would mediate between people and parties of the diverse viewpoints and make sure the language is neutral and acceptable to all. If people do not agree on social benefits through govt laws, we could even agree to separate those as choices for taxpayers to opt in or out of. Many people have beliefs about social benefits through state not federal, or through private means.
So that's another option that people or parties could agree to manage separately rather than force or ban beliefs about what programs to fund. Since people of like beliefs tend to organize by party, I think that's a natural way we could separate social taxation and have equal representation without imposing on each other's beliefs or priorities .
OK
On one side, you have a same sex marriage saying ......we love each other
On the other side, you have a bigot that says ...God hates fags
Mediate away Emily
Dear SbikerNo one's rights have been taken away and given to gays. Religious folks still have the right to marry the person of their choice.Of course marriage is a right. That's been reaffirmed no less than 14 times by the U.S. Supreme Court.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...
... 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.
- 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.”
- 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.
- 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.”
- 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.”
- 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.”
- 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.”
- 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.”
- 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.”
- 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.”
- Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374, 384 (1978): “The right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals.”
- 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.”
- 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.”
- 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.”
- 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.”
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"...
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...
1. To some people yes it's totally unacceptable if not blasphemous and offensive and imposing on them and their beliefs so this either should remain private or not practiced at all
2. To some they may not agree, but still accept it, and only oppose as a public policy endorsed through govt. Like people who don't oppose but who accept and support Christianity but not to be endorsed through govt.
3. Some accept gay marriage and agree to have govt endorse it, and are either neutral either way, or who favor inclusion.
4. And some absolutely HAVE to have marriage equality Through Govt and cannot have marriage taken out for everyone in order to be equal. For some it's required or its not an equal right for all people.
So Sbiker given these beliefs, about 4 major leanings with variations of reasons and degrees.
How do you suggest states implement laws to treat all these beliefs equally?
- Aug 4, 2009
- 281,893
- 145,202
- 2,615
EasyDear SbikerNo one's rights have been taken away and given to gays. Religious folks still have the right to marry the person of their choice.Of course marriage is a right. That's been reaffirmed no less than 14 times by the U.S. Supreme Court.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...
... 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.
- 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.”
- 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.
- 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.”
- 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.”
- 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.”
- 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.”
- 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.”
- 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.”
- 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.”
- Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374, 384 (1978): “The right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals.”
- 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.”
- 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.”
- 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.”
- 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.”
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"...
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...
1. To some people yes it's totally unacceptable if not blasphemous and offensive and imposing on them and their beliefs so this either should remain private or not practiced at all
2. To some they may not agree, but still accept it, and only oppose as a public policy endorsed through govt. Like people who don't oppose but who accept and support Christianity but not to be endorsed through govt.
3. Some accept gay marriage and agree to have govt endorse it, and are either neutral either way, or who favor inclusion.
4. And some absolutely HAVE to have marriage equality Through Govt and cannot have marriage taken out for everyone in order to be equal. For some it's required or its not an equal right for all people.
So Sbiker given these beliefs, about 4 major leanings with variations of reasons and degrees.
How do you suggest states implement laws to treat all these beliefs equally?
If you believe same sex marriage is blasphemous......don't do it
If you love someone of the same sex......marry them
What is not fair about that?
OMG - what you are calling for IS ILLEGAL. How old are you? Do you realize that prior to the 70's, we had dixiecrats (democrats) that were more right wing conservative than republicans? We had republicans that were to the left of democrats, because the makeup in a lot of places was white color V blue color (union). Both had leftists and rightists. The parties didn't change overnight, they changed as persons left office in various states. There are caps on donations to dems and republicans - aren't you aware of any of these things? if it's people across states to National (or even global), since it doesn't have to go through federal...hmmm - you do realize that national and federal are the same, and people don't vote on national, federal and global issues? We have an electoral college. It elects the POTUS/VPOTUS, not you. Think before you talk, validate your statements, and then don't put them down here when you discover you are asking for illegal laws and actions.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)
View attachment 100341
Dear Sneekin:
1. What I mean by national is NONPROFITS can have national organization from local to state to national and even international.
Social benefits programs can be organized that way if people prefer that to running it through federal govt
and having to answer to taxpayers who don't agree with their social priorities and beliefs or terms in funding health care or welfare.
There is nothing illegal about setting up charitable or business corporations to manage member benefits collectively.
That might be one alternative to separate people's beliefs by likeminded groups, so they can work things out amongst themselves more effectively.
Like one huge church splitting into two or more denominations because they don't agree on women priests or on gay marriages, for example.
2. No, this isn't REQUIRING people to join a faith,
it's ALLOWING them the option of funding social programs through the affiliated network of their choice.
It doesn't have to be the actual political party itself, but using that system
to set up a network of likeminded contributors, and then those contributors
set up their own businesses or charities that manage the social programs.
The Clintons set up their own Clinton Foundation.
What if all the big Democrats and financiers organized a huge health care and
medical educational cooperative network?
Would that be "illegal" just because it connects people from local all the way up to national or international?
If it's completely voluntary to donate or invest in, isn't that within free enterprise to set up?
The licensing of corporations would still be done through States as normal.
But these could be national or global in scope, depending how they are set up.
EasyDear SbikerNo one's rights have been taken away and given to gays. Religious folks still have the right to marry the person of their choice.Of course marriage is a right. That's been reaffirmed no less than 14 times by the U.S. Supreme Court.
... 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.
- 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.”
- 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.
- 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.”
- 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.”
- 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.”
- 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.”
- 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.”
- 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.”
- 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.”
- Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374, 384 (1978): “The right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals.”
- 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.”
- 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.”
- 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.”
- 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.”
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"...
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...
1. To some people yes it's totally unacceptable if not blasphemous and offensive and imposing on them and their beliefs so this either should remain private or not practiced at all
2. To some they may not agree, but still accept it, and only oppose as a public policy endorsed through govt. Like people who don't oppose but who accept and support Christianity but not to be endorsed through govt.
3. Some accept gay marriage and agree to have govt endorse it, and are either neutral either way, or who favor inclusion.
4. And some absolutely HAVE to have marriage equality Through Govt and cannot have marriage taken out for everyone in order to be equal. For some it's required or its not an equal right for all people.
So Sbiker given these beliefs, about 4 major leanings with variations of reasons and degrees.
How do you suggest states implement laws to treat all these beliefs equally?
If you believe same sex marriage is blasphemous......don't do it
If you love someone of the same sex......marry them
What is not fair about that?
rightwinger by keeping marriage out of govt,
yes, people are free to practice and don't have to answer to the public.
but if you are depending on licensing through govt,
that's where those terms should be as neutral as necessary
to prevent conflicts with other people who have equal say in how
laws are written and implements if these are through govt that is public.
I posted other arguments for privatizing marriage and only
managing civil contracts through govt, so this is perfectly clear and separate:
Marriage as a FREEDOM under the Constitution: Can it be practiced equally without relying on govt?
- Aug 4, 2009
- 281,893
- 145,202
- 2,615
OK EmilyEasyDear SbikerNo one's rights have been taken away and given to gays. Religious folks still have the right to marry the person of their choice.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"...
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...
1. To some people yes it's totally unacceptable if not blasphemous and offensive and imposing on them and their beliefs so this either should remain private or not practiced at all
2. To some they may not agree, but still accept it, and only oppose as a public policy endorsed through govt. Like people who don't oppose but who accept and support Christianity but not to be endorsed through govt.
3. Some accept gay marriage and agree to have govt endorse it, and are either neutral either way, or who favor inclusion.
4. And some absolutely HAVE to have marriage equality Through Govt and cannot have marriage taken out for everyone in order to be equal. For some it's required or its not an equal right for all people.
So Sbiker given these beliefs, about 4 major leanings with variations of reasons and degrees.
How do you suggest states implement laws to treat all these beliefs equally?
If you believe same sex marriage is blasphemous......don't do it
If you love someone of the same sex......marry them
What is not fair about that?
rightwinger by keeping marriage out of govt,
yes, people are free to practice and don't have to answer to the public.
but if you are depending on licensing through govt,
that's where those terms should be as neutral as necessary
to prevent conflicts with other people who have equal say in how
laws are written and implements if these are through govt that is public.
I posted other arguments for privatizing marriage and only
managing civil contracts through govt, so this is perfectly clear and separate:
Marriage as a FREEDOM under the Constitution: Can it be practiced equally without relying on govt?
Take Government out of marriage...
Get married on a mountaintop by a hippie minister
Get rid of marriage tax breaks and joint filing
Go to a hospital and explain you want to make life or death decisions for you spouse
Have children and establish custodial rights
If you get divorced, go back to your hippie minister and have him decide distribution of property and childcare rights
Do that without government involvement
- Nov 14, 2011
- 122,303
- 70,044
- 2,635
You can't get rid of marriage, Emily -- it's a right.EasyDear SbikerNo one's rights have been taken away and given to gays. Religious folks still have the right to marry the person of their choice.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"...
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...
1. To some people yes it's totally unacceptable if not blasphemous and offensive and imposing on them and their beliefs so this either should remain private or not practiced at all
2. To some they may not agree, but still accept it, and only oppose as a public policy endorsed through govt. Like people who don't oppose but who accept and support Christianity but not to be endorsed through govt.
3. Some accept gay marriage and agree to have govt endorse it, and are either neutral either way, or who favor inclusion.
4. And some absolutely HAVE to have marriage equality Through Govt and cannot have marriage taken out for everyone in order to be equal. For some it's required or its not an equal right for all people.
So Sbiker given these beliefs, about 4 major leanings with variations of reasons and degrees.
How do you suggest states implement laws to treat all these beliefs equally?
If you believe same sex marriage is blasphemous......don't do it
If you love someone of the same sex......marry them
What is not fair about that?
rightwinger by keeping marriage out of govt,
yes, people are free to practice and don't have to answer to the public.
but if you are depending on licensing through govt,
that's where those terms should be as neutral as necessary
to prevent conflicts with other people who have equal say in how
laws are written and implements if these are through govt that is public.
I posted other arguments for privatizing marriage and only
managing civil contracts through govt, so this is perfectly clear and separate:
Marriage as a FREEDOM under the Constitution: Can it be practiced equally without relying on govt?
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.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!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.There's already a word for it...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
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!
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.
Dear @Sn e ekin and Faun
NO, that's NOT what I am saying.
And Faun is also saying that I am misconstruing and misstating also.
Sorry about this, and let's try again to get this straight
A. for Faun
it's NOT that Faun is TRYING to exclude or discriminate against beliefs of those who don't believe in gay marriage.
But Faun does not get how these laws are doing any such thing!
So if there is no perceived imposition or "forcing" anyone, how can that be affecting those other beliefs?
I am saying it IS affecting them just by passing laws where govt is endorsing marriage,
and there are terms that people don't agree on.
It does not have to affect them directly, as in the actual marriage laws,
to affect them; just the fact that it is going through govt as a public institution
is enough.
So this is like saying how can legalizing abortion be affecting people who aren't involved in that choice?
this is for other people, not those who don't want abortion, who can still choose to abstain or prevent from getting involved in any such situation.
Well, as long as it is going through govt, and laws are public,
then ALL people who have beliefs about this would rather laws be consistent with their values.
And anything inconsistent is seen as an imposition of bias, which is especially problematic with anything seen as faith based.
Now Faun also does not see anything "faith based" or 'religious" about civil marriage laws.
so Faun I understand you do NOT INTEND to discriminate or impose on anyone else
because you sincerely see no harm or imposition happening whatsoever!
that doesn't mean it isn't happening.
Sneekin pointed out that my using the term "traditional" loosely was offensive and biased
because it didn't count other things as equally "traditional' which is NOT what I meant.
But still, if that word means something different to someone else, of course, I would
have to change it and not expect them to change their thinking about it because that word "doesn't have to mean anything offensive"
B. for me,
Again I am NOT saying that the marriage beliefs are being forced onto people in that sense.
I am saying that if people do not believe or agree on terms of policies
that are being endorsed by govt,
then it's THAT bias regardless of content that is causing a problem.
The fact that a law that doesn't represent all the people, but only those who see things a certain way,
and leaves out the people who believe differently,
is being PASSED and ENFORCED through govt without reworking it to INCLUDE the consent
of the overruled people, then this is causing the imposition.
Regardless of the content, if there are such differences in beliefs
that people cannot even SEE what imposition is occurring, while the others DO and are OBJECTING,
something is REALLY wrong with how that law is being written or applied.
There is something wrong with the process if people don't even get what
the other side sees right or wrong with it.
So it is inadverdently causing an imposition of bias.
OK EmilyEasyDear SbikerNo 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...
1. To some people yes it's totally unacceptable if not blasphemous and offensive and imposing on them and their beliefs so this either should remain private or not practiced at all
2. To some they may not agree, but still accept it, and only oppose as a public policy endorsed through govt. Like people who don't oppose but who accept and support Christianity but not to be endorsed through govt.
3. Some accept gay marriage and agree to have govt endorse it, and are either neutral either way, or who favor inclusion.
4. And some absolutely HAVE to have marriage equality Through Govt and cannot have marriage taken out for everyone in order to be equal. For some it's required or its not an equal right for all people.
So Sbiker given these beliefs, about 4 major leanings with variations of reasons and degrees.
How do you suggest states implement laws to treat all these beliefs equally?
If you believe same sex marriage is blasphemous......don't do it
If you love someone of the same sex......marry them
What is not fair about that?
rightwinger by keeping marriage out of govt,
yes, people are free to practice and don't have to answer to the public.
but if you are depending on licensing through govt,
that's where those terms should be as neutral as necessary
to prevent conflicts with other people who have equal say in how
laws are written and implements if these are through govt that is public.
I posted other arguments for privatizing marriage and only
managing civil contracts through govt, so this is perfectly clear and separate:
Marriage as a FREEDOM under the Constitution: Can it be practiced equally without relying on govt?
Take Government out of marriage...
Get married on a mountaintop by a hippie minister
Get rid of marriage tax breaks and joint filing
Go to a hospital and explain you want to make life or death decisions for you spouse
Have children and establish custodial rights
If you get divorced, go back to your hippie minister and have him decide distribution of property and childcare rights
Do that without government involvement
Yes rightwinger
and do NOT insist on hiring and renting services from vendors
who don't believe in gay or interracial or interfaith marriages,
so you don't have to sue them for discrimination!
Equating two people of the same sex who cannot procreate with two people of different races is absurd and a misinterpretation of "separate but equal".
Marriage and sex are about procreation as far as society is concerned; the reason that states grant couples legal marriage privilidges is because it incentivites them to start a family which ideally will contribute to the economy and society.
Since gays cannot make children it defeats the whole purpose of offering them marriage incentives to begin with; therefore there is no reason for the state to do it; not to mention that allowing gays to adopt children puts the children in an unnatural environment which is likely harmful to them.
Therefore the Supreme court's ruling would best be overturned with a Constitutional amendment placing marriage solely in the hands of the states.
You're not a supreme court justice.
Thus irrelevant.
Emily, you most certainly would not mediate my marriage or any other viewpoint. if it's not a civil law, then you have your opinion, I have mine, if they are the same, great, if not, great. You still don't grasp the concept that we don't mediate non issues. You also don't mediate social benefits through government laws, as that already is defined, and NON-NEGOTIABLE. You cannot opt in or opt out of things that are law. I'm starting to feel pity for you, as you aren't firmly grounded in reality, I believe. There is no such thing as social taxation as you outlined above. You can have sin taxes (ie, more tax on soda than prescriptions), but that's really about it. It's also ILLEGAL (you've now been told by myself and others at least 10 times, Emily, so give it up) to tax by political affiliation. I truly pity your misunderstanding of this issue. It's sad.Dear rightwinger[
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.
How on earth do you "mediate" same sex marriage?
Who do you expect to mediate with......the bigots?
As Faun and I both agree the civil laws are intended to be about the civil contracts only, we would mediate between people and parties of the diverse viewpoints and make sure the language is neutral and acceptable to all. If people do not agree on social benefits through govt laws, we could even agree to separate those as choices for taxpayers to opt in or out of. Many people have beliefs about social benefits through state not federal, or through private means.
So that's another option that people or parties could agree to manage separately rather than force or ban beliefs about what programs to fund. Since people of like beliefs tend to organize by party, I think that's a natural way we could separate social taxation and have equal representation without imposing on each other's beliefs or priorities .
1. It may be unacceptable - but it's not against the law. If you are referring to CIVIL MARRIAGE, it's not blasphemous, offensive, or totally unacceptable - it's only their OPINION. Get over it. It's Law, and the law is PUBLIC. It is, and will be practiced by all. Deal with it. Get it through your head, as well.Dear SbikerNo one's rights have been taken away and given to gays. Religious folks still have the right to marry the person of their choice.Of course marriage is a right. That's been reaffirmed no less than 14 times by the U.S. Supreme Court.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...
... 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.
- 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.”
- 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.
- 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.”
- 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.”
- 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.”
- 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.”
- 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.”
- 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.”
- 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.”
- Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374, 384 (1978): “The right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals.”
- 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.”
- 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.”
- 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.”
- 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.”
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"...
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...
1. To some people yes it's totally unacceptable if not blasphemous and offensive and imposing on them and their beliefs so this either should remain private or not practiced at all
2. To some they may not agree, but still accept it, and only oppose as a public policy endorsed through govt. Like people who don't oppose but who accept and support Christianity but not to be endorsed through govt.
3. Some accept gay marriage and agree to have govt endorse it, and are either neutral either way, or who favor inclusion.
4. And some absolutely HAVE to have marriage equality Through Govt and cannot have marriage taken out for everyone in order to be equal. For some it's required or its not an equal right for all people.
So Sbiker given these beliefs, about 4 major leanings with variations of reasons and degrees.
How do you suggest states implement laws to treat all these beliefs equally?
2. It's law. It's approved by government. It's not forced on Christianity. BTW, my Christian Church marries all couples. Period. Recognized in all 50 states. Not blasphemous (can't be), not offensive etc tec.
3. It's law.
4. It's law
To sum it up, the answer to 1-4, all four times, is IT'S THE LAW OF THE LAND. Deal with it. There are no private laws. You and the fundamentalist talibani christians are NOT forced to accept it. Not forced to believe it ok. But they will use the same marriage license in that church as my church, synagogue, mosque, or Temple. Comprende? The 14th Amendment is in full force and effect. Marriage between two men, two women, or one man and a woman, using a state issued marriage license, signed by a representative of the state that is empowered to sign (Judge, JP, Priest, Rabbi, Imam, Monk, etc). Your church must use it, so must mine (provided we are in the same state), and the same applies for all that are married by a JP/Judge. Understand now? No such thing as private laws. Stop lying to Sbiker. You are NOT being truthful, you are making false claims, many of which violate US law. You are once again talking about things you know nothing about, and pretend to be advocating for issues that 1) don't exist; 2) are illegal, and/or 3) exist only in your mind. You will never pass laws (you can't, illegal) privatizing marriage (laws are PUBLIC), or use different terms (violates the 14th amendment). Just STOP!
Another example of you promoting people break the law. If there are laws on the books that clearly state no discrimination based on sexual preference, then a business owner MUST obey.OK EmilyEasyDear SbikerReligious 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...
1. To some people yes it's totally unacceptable if not blasphemous and offensive and imposing on them and their beliefs so this either should remain private or not practiced at all
2. To some they may not agree, but still accept it, and only oppose as a public policy endorsed through govt. Like people who don't oppose but who accept and support Christianity but not to be endorsed through govt.
3. Some accept gay marriage and agree to have govt endorse it, and are either neutral either way, or who favor inclusion.
4. And some absolutely HAVE to have marriage equality Through Govt and cannot have marriage taken out for everyone in order to be equal. For some it's required or its not an equal right for all people.
So Sbiker given these beliefs, about 4 major leanings with variations of reasons and degrees.
How do you suggest states implement laws to treat all these beliefs equally?
If you believe same sex marriage is blasphemous......don't do it
If you love someone of the same sex......marry them
What is not fair about that?
rightwinger by keeping marriage out of govt,
yes, people are free to practice and don't have to answer to the public.
but if you are depending on licensing through govt,
that's where those terms should be as neutral as necessary
to prevent conflicts with other people who have equal say in how
laws are written and implements if these are through govt that is public.
I posted other arguments for privatizing marriage and only
managing civil contracts through govt, so this is perfectly clear and separate:
Marriage as a FREEDOM under the Constitution: Can it be practiced equally without relying on govt?
Take Government out of marriage...
Get married on a mountaintop by a hippie minister
Get rid of marriage tax breaks and joint filing
Go to a hospital and explain you want to make life or death decisions for you spouse
Have children and establish custodial rights
If you get divorced, go back to your hippie minister and have him decide distribution of property and childcare rights
Do that without government involvement
Yes rightwinger
and do NOT insist on hiring and renting services from vendors
who don't believe in gay or interracial or interfaith marriages,
so you don't have to sue them for discrimination!
I feel like I'm talking now to a 5 year old - here's another example. We were dirt poor when we got married. We lived in the country, had to get picked up to go grocery shopping, school, church, etc. When we got married, there was ONE person that made wedding cakes in the area - we are talking a drive of at least 50 plus miles to get a cake elsewhere. We scraped together what we could, she made a beautiful cake at much less than the going price in the cities 50 miles away. The photographer road to the church with our ride. We rented the parish hall. Our friends catered the event. You do realize, don't you, that our friends could have backed out with no legal recourse, just lost friendship. The church could have refused to allow the parish center used for the reception (we had a second one at our apartment, where alcohol was served). The photographer and cake baker couldn't. PERIOD. It would have been against the law! I can have WHOEVER I WANT to cater/bake/take photos/provide a venue, and you, nor anyone else, can tell them that it's ok to break the law. I got what I paid for - and couldn't go elsewhere - so wrap your mind around the real world facts that actually happen.
Deep breath, Emily, now think. You just said
"I posted other arguments for privatizing marriage and only managing civil contracts through govt, so this is perfectly clear and separate:"
Marriage is a civil contract, and must be registered with the state to be valid. As you've been told probably 20 times, you can have your own church matrimony (correct religious term, actually, according to the bible I use) that's not valid in any state, unless your pastors signs the CIVIL DOCUMENT (MARRIAGE LICENSE). That's what makes your marriage legal. No one cares about your faux issues. There is NO intrusion - everyone who gets married fills out the state application. The person performing the ceremony signs it. They aren't advocating gay marriage, straight marriage, or anything else, just MARRIAGE. You keep babbling about privatizing, but that is patently illegal, and would not be recognized by either the state nor federal government. If you are willing to give up 1138 benefits, by all means, divorce your husband civilly, and have another marriage ceremony where your pastor doesn't sign a marriage license. It will be nice and private for you (and I'm happy that you're happy). And remember come April 15th - you must file single (one, for at least the next year, can file head of household if you have children). The "ex-spouse" (but yet religious spouse) will more than likely be mandated to pay child support. You'll no longer have access to the other's social security, retirement, be allowed to make medical decisions for each other, etc. if that's what you want, that's what you'll get when you "privatize" your marriage. Civil Marriage is by law PUBLIC and PUBLIC RECORD. Did I make this clear enough for you? THERE ARE NO SUCH THINGS AS privatizing laws so that they only apply to groups. It flies in the face of sanity, to start with. Makes them unenforceable.
Similar threads
- Replies
- 17
- Views
- 193
- Replies
- 5
- Views
- 222
- Replies
- 13
- Views
- 189
Latest Discussions
- Poll
- Replies
- 78
- Views
- 2K
Forum List
-
-
-
-
-
Political Satire 8141
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
ObamaCare 781
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Member Usernotes 472
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-