Kentucky Clerks Refuse to Issue Gay Marriage Licenses

[Syriusly]

So when a cop refuses to arrest someone- citing his religious beliefs- that will be fine with you?

And when a judge refuses to sentence someone to death- citing his religious beliefs- that will be fine with you?

County clerks currently employed had absolutely no way of knowing that their religious faith would clash with what they are now being told they have to do. So the federal government should give a full retirement severance package for [x] years those employees across the country had planned to work in that career; all wages, including expected yearly cost of living adjustments, raises...up to and including retirement, including a full medical package they were also promised for themselves and their families, in order to pacify their claims of today. Or else the Court could just uphold the 1st Amendment since what we're talking about is forcing Christians to participate in a cult's value system of deviant sex behaviors and not a static race.

Well once again- Silhouette is expressing her fantasy about the world.

 

[Syriusly]

Fire them, done deal. Don't want to do the job you are being paid to do? Find another.

I'm guessing there will be a question added to the job app for states now.

Question 5:
"Can you properly conduct all duties required when taking this job based on your religious views? If not, thanks for stopping by."

Obama should do what Raygun did with the Air Traffic Controller union. Fire them all and hire people that aren't religious fanatics, and cite Raygun as the precedent.

Snap mfer!

Firing people for their religious beliefs is illegal, turd.

As noted above, a state employee choosing one religion over another is illegal.

Let's have hundreds of Muslims get state jobs in Texas and start denying marriage licenses to Christians that want to marry.

See the problem Mary?

There is nothing that requires a state employee to give up his religious beliefs.
As usual you are misinformed.

So when a cop refuses to arrest someone- citing his religious beliefs- that will be fine with you?

And when a judge refuses to sentence someone to death- citing his religious beliefs- that will be fine with you?

And when a clerk refuses to issue that concealed carry permit- citing his religious beliefs- that will be fine with you?

And when the clerk refuses to issue that building permit for a Christian church- citing his religious beliefs- that will be fine with you?

Don't be stupid,
Oh, you can't help it.

That is your 'tell'

Whenever you are unable to actually dispute someone's post- you just call them stupid.

 

[The Rabbi]

Firing people for their religious beliefs is illegal, turd.

As noted above, a state employee choosing one religion over another is illegal.

Let's have hundreds of Muslims get state jobs in Texas and start denying marriage licenses to Christians that want to marry.

See the problem Mary?

There is nothing that requires a state employee to give up his religious beliefs.
As usual you are misinformed.

So when a cop refuses to arrest someone- citing his religious beliefs- that will be fine with you?

And when a judge refuses to sentence someone to death- citing his religious beliefs- that will be fine with you?

And when a clerk refuses to issue that concealed carry permit- citing his religious beliefs- that will be fine with you?

And when the clerk refuses to issue that building permit for a Christian church- citing his religious beliefs- that will be fine with you?

Don't be stupid,
Oh, you can't help it.

That is your 'tell'

Whenever you are unable to actually dispute someone's post- you just call them stupid.

There is no disputing that your posts are 100% bullshit.

 

[Syriusly]

As noted above, a state employee choosing one religion over another is illegal.

Let's have hundreds of Muslims get state jobs in Texas and start denying marriage licenses to Christians that want to marry.

See the problem Mary?

There is nothing that requires a state employee to give up his religious beliefs.
As usual you are misinformed.

So when a cop refuses to arrest someone- citing his religious beliefs- that will be fine with you?

And when a judge refuses to sentence someone to death- citing his religious beliefs- that will be fine with you?

And when a clerk refuses to issue that concealed carry permit- citing his religious beliefs- that will be fine with you?

And when the clerk refuses to issue that building permit for a Christian church- citing his religious beliefs- that will be fine with you?

Don't be stupid,
Oh, you can't help it.

That is your 'tell'

Whenever you are unable to actually dispute someone's post- you just call them stupid.

There is no disputing that your posts are 100% bullshit.

That is your 'tell'

Whenever you are unable to actually dispute someone's post- you just call them stupid.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The far right dunderheads fail. Period.

 

[Bruce_T_Laney]

Big surprise.

Those Red states are filled with pig-fucking devils calling themselves "Christian".

This is gonna be one of those eras that future Christians look back on....and try to revise.

They sure will like they did when they claimed the Mark of Cain was black skin...

Ask those Social Conservatives today about how their religion once used a Curse from the Bible to supported their bigoted view against those that did not have the same Lily White skin as them?

"
Baptist segregation
The split between the Northern and Southern Baptist organizations arose over slavery and the education of slaves. At the time of the split, the Southern Baptist group used the curse of Cain as a justification for slavery. Some 19th- and 20th-century Baptist ministers in the Southern United States taught that there were two separate heavens; one for blacks, and one for whites.[23] Baptists have taught or practiced various forms of racial segregation well into the mid-to-late-20th century, though members of all races were accepted at worship services.[24] In 1995, the Southern Baptist Convention officially denounced racism and apologized for its past defense of slavery. "

Curse and mark of Cain - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

This will explain the mindset we are dealing with when it come to social conservatives like the OP'er...

 

[Agit8r]

Some Kentucky county clerks refuse to issue marriage licenses following same-sex marriage ruling

Defying the instructions of Gov. Steve Beshear, several county clerks around Kentucky said they won't issue marriage licenses anymore because of the U.S. Supreme Court's 5-to-4 ruling Friday in favor of a nationwide right to same-sex marriage....Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis said Monday that her Christian beliefs won't allow her to give marriage licenses to gay men or lesbians seeking to marry a member of the same sex. Rather than face claims of discrimination, her office in Morehead is refusing marriage licenses to all couples until further notice, Davis said. Some Kentucky county clerks refuse to issue marriage licenses following same-sex marriage ruling Politics and Government Kentucky.com

more..

"It's hard; I will tell you that," Davis said. "What has happened is that five lawyers have imposed their personal view of what the definition of marriage should be on the rest of us. And I, as a Christian, have strong views, too. And I know I don't stand alone."...Chris Jobe, president of the Kentucky County Clerks Association, said he has heard from several clerks who have religious objections to same-sex marriage, so they won't issue marriage licenses anymore. Some Kentucky county clerks refuse to issue marriage licenses following same-sex marriage ruling Politics and Government Kentucky.com

This will be coming up soon. This Hearing pending at SCOTUS is actually more pivotal and may wind up reversing Friday's Ruling. The choice the Court will face? Dictate to the Vatican and other church leaders which dire warnings in the New Testament Christians "have to ignore" or Uphold the 1st Amendment. The 9th Amendment means that last Friday's fundamental change to the Constitution cannot overshadow any other Constitutional right people enjoy...including the 1st.

So a Court that thought this was "all done and over with" will be chagrined to find this has just begun..

Fun fact: Did you know the Supreme Court cannot make fundamental or ill-conceived changes to the Constitution? Only the Congress and states can make those changes jointly. Friday's Ruling is unconstitutional by its very mechanics. And therefore states like Kentucky, Alabama, Texas and any other are not bound to abide by Friday's illegal Ruling.

That's what happens when Christians don't read their bibles

"it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also as a matter of conscience. This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, who give their full time to governing."
-- Romans 13:5-6

 

[emilynghiem]

Do they expect to get paid for not doing their job?

They can leave their jobs, or they can sue for discrimination and being forced to violate their religious beliefs to keep their jobs or be fined.

I think we will see discrimination suits.

You cannot on one hand yell for "separation of church and state" in ONE case for ONE set of beliefs
and then when this happens, turn around and try to FORCE this through govt in violation of beliefs
when it comes to OTHER beliefs. Either all beliefs need to be removed from govt, or let them all be practiced freely without removing any; but not force some and deny others which isn't equal treatment of all people's beliefs.

This is discrimination.

This shows WHY marriage should be kept out of the state.
And only do neutral civil contracts through the govt, with no biased, religious, or personal language in their that invokes one group's beliefs over another.

if the word Marriage causes a conflict, similar to the word God, then remove it if it isn't religiously neutral.

Officials REALLY should have seen this coming
and mediated in advance to form a consensus on policies instead of wasting public resources
fighting back and forth through legislatures, elections and courts when they KNOW people disagree religiously.

Marriage should have been removed from govt to begin with, not after the fact!

 

[emilynghiem]

Some Kentucky county clerks refuse to issue marriage licenses following same-sex marriage ruling

Defying the instructions of Gov. Steve Beshear, several county clerks around Kentucky said they won't issue marriage licenses anymore because of the U.S. Supreme Court's 5-to-4 ruling Friday in favor of a nationwide right to same-sex marriage....Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis said Monday that her Christian beliefs won't allow her to give marriage licenses to gay men or lesbians seeking to marry a member of the same sex. Rather than face claims of discrimination, her office in Morehead is refusing marriage licenses to all couples until further notice, Davis said. Some Kentucky county clerks refuse to issue marriage licenses following same-sex marriage ruling Politics and Government Kentucky.com

more..

"It's hard; I will tell you that," Davis said. "What has happened is that five lawyers have imposed their personal view of what the definition of marriage should be on the rest of us. And I, as a Christian, have strong views, too. And I know I don't stand alone."...Chris Jobe, president of the Kentucky County Clerks Association, said he has heard from several clerks who have religious objections to same-sex marriage, so they won't issue marriage licenses anymore. Some Kentucky county clerks refuse to issue marriage licenses following same-sex marriage ruling Politics and Government Kentucky.com

This will be coming up soon. This Hearing pending at SCOTUS is actually more pivotal and may wind up reversing Friday's Ruling. The choice the Court will face? Dictate to the Vatican and other church leaders which dire warnings in the New Testament Christians "have to ignore" or Uphold the 1st Amendment. The 9th Amendment means that last Friday's fundamental change to the Constitution cannot overshadow any other Constitutional right people enjoy...including the 1st.

So a Court that thought this was "all done and over with" will be chagrined to find this has just begun..

Fun fact: Did you know the Supreme Court cannot make fundamental or ill-conceived changes to the Constitution? Only the Congress and states can make those changes jointly. Friday's Ruling is unconstitutional by its very mechanics. And therefore states like Kentucky, Alabama, Texas and any other are not bound to abide by Friday's illegal Ruling.

That's what happens when Christians don't read their bibles

"it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also as a matter of conscience. This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, who give their full time to governing."
-- Romans 13:5-6

Hi Agit8r The Constitution as the secular authority DOES defend
1. Free Exercise of religion from establishment of beliefs by Govt
2. Equal protection of the laws from discrimination by Creed

Your point would stand if the protesting clerk was only denying licenses to gay couples: that would be against civil authority because it would not be equal but discriminating against some while serving others.

However, to recognize that ALL Marriage should be removed from the state since it involves religiously held beliefs, that is ENFORCING Constitutional law, not violating it.

The clerk does have the right to petition to redress grievances, and is seeking civil means of doing so,
given CONTRADICTORY instructions that are against the Constitution.

When the conflict over Marriage laws was first identified, it should be settled directly between the parties so NOBODY'S beliefs or equal protections are violated.

But since this was unlawfully adjudicated by the Court, which should not make laws respecting an establishment of religion, the Court ruling violated laws so the clerk is trying to address and correct that in the least obstructive way.

There can be other clerks assigned to the job until this is resolved.
But nobody should be punished for their beliefs. The Court set the people up to fail
because the govt cannot force anyone by law to change or compromise their beliefs.

The Court justices who didn't order mediation and consensus to keep this out of govt hands,
should all be held to account. Instead of taking one side or the other, they should all have agreed
that consensus by the people is required to make a religious or faith based decision, and they have
no authority to take sides. All the justices could have stood together and struck down ANY law that
was biased one way or the other; and only uphold laws written and passed by consensus of the people affected.

 

[amrchaos]

Big surprise.

Those Red states are filled with pig-fucking devils calling themselves "Christian".

This is gonna be one of those eras that future Christians look back on....and try to revise.

Hardly. The fight between the cult of LGBT and Christians has just gotten off the ground. Christians are not going to exchange their immortal soul for a marriage license issuance, a cake or a bouqet of flowers. It's ON. And like another poster said, the Court is going to be very busy in the next couple years revisiting its mistake last Friday...

If LGBTs even understood their etiology and weren't merely deviant sex behaviors, we wouldn't even be having this conversation. But being behaviors was a precedent the Court should not have willfully ignored to render a false conclusion..

Question

Just HOW are Christians going to challenge gay marriage when they can't show how a gay married couple is harming them?

The Christians have no case. What ever challenge you talk of, is a figment of your imagination. Any challenges that do make it to the SCOTUS will get kicked out or overruled in favor of gay marriage.

Don't you see, anti-gay marriage people.
You lose

You......Lose....

 

[emilynghiem]

Big surprise.

Those Red states are filled with pig-fucking devils calling themselves "Christian".

This is gonna be one of those eras that future Christians look back on....and try to revise.

Hardly. The fight between the cult of LGBT and Christians has just gotten off the ground. Christians are not going to exchange their immortal soul for a marriage license issuance, a cake or a bouqet of flowers. It's ON. And like another poster said, the Court is going to be very busy in the next couple years revisiting its mistake last Friday...

If LGBTs even understood their etiology and weren't merely deviant sex behaviors, we wouldn't even be having this conversation. But being behaviors was a precedent the Court should not have willfully ignored to render a false conclusion..

Question

Just HOW are Christians going to challenge gay marriage when they can't show how a gay married couple is harming them?

The Christians have no case. What ever challenge you talk of, is a figment of your imagination. Any challenges that do make it to the SCOTUS will get kicked out or overruled in favor of gay marriage.

Don't you see, anti-gay marriage people.
You lose

You......Lose....

Hi amrchaos
the SAME way Atheists sue to remove crosses without showing any harm or imposition is caused.
Just on the PRINCIPLE of "separation of church and state" or separating beliefs from govt,
these arguments have been made and won, both in the public arena and in the courtroom.

Now, if that approach doesn't work, then you use the CONFLICT to make the point.

If liberally biased people CANNOT see how "Atheists removing God from public institutions"
and "traditionalists removing Marriage or Gay marriage from public institutions" are both based on BELIEFS, that are Equally protected under law, without favoritism or endorsement by govt of one over the other,

then a BIAS can be demonstrated. And such a BIAS is unlawful, regardless of the
degree of harm that it may cause. The First Amendment does NOT excuse govt "as long as no harm is caused" or else the Atheist would not win the argument based on PRINCIPLE.

If a particular Party (we won't mention any names, or I will get teased for saying Democrat instead of Democratic) abuses public leaders, offices and process to endorse THEIR beliefs through govt, while denying and penalizing the beliefs of others, this would demonstrate Discrimination by Creed.

And abusing Public resources, authority, laws, institutions, etc. to violate the equal religious freedom,
rights and protection of others would easily constitute "Conspiring to Violate Equal Civil Rights"

So either way, it would be proven there is a bias in belief. And it is causing harm not to treat people equally, similar to arguments about treating gay couples differently by excluding them.

Either on its face, the same way Atheists object to God and petition to have references removed from public institutions, the same can be argued for people who "don't believe" in gay marriage, which is a personal practice and can be arguably REMOVED from state govt (unless laws can be written neutrally and passed by consensual agreement to avoid imposing or denying anyone's spiritual beliefs or personal practices under Amendment One).

OR if that argument fails, then the fact that it fails shows religious or political discrimination,
by enforcing laws for one set of beliefs but denying the same protection to another group.

So either way, you can show the imposition of bias.

People may not see this at first, but from my experience, once people recognize the mutual bias, it changes how they look at things. Once their eyes and minds are open to that degree of awareness of the conflicts, they don't go back to hiding behind their views, projecting all the blame on opposing groups, and pretending the problem isn't mutual between both camps.

 

[Agit8r]

Some Kentucky county clerks refuse to issue marriage licenses following same-sex marriage ruling

Defying the instructions of Gov. Steve Beshear, several county clerks around Kentucky said they won't issue marriage licenses anymore because of the U.S. Supreme Court's 5-to-4 ruling Friday in favor of a nationwide right to same-sex marriage....Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis said Monday that her Christian beliefs won't allow her to give marriage licenses to gay men or lesbians seeking to marry a member of the same sex. Rather than face claims of discrimination, her office in Morehead is refusing marriage licenses to all couples until further notice, Davis said. Some Kentucky county clerks refuse to issue marriage licenses following same-sex marriage ruling Politics and Government Kentucky.com

more..

"It's hard; I will tell you that," Davis said. "What has happened is that five lawyers have imposed their personal view of what the definition of marriage should be on the rest of us. And I, as a Christian, have strong views, too. And I know I don't stand alone."...Chris Jobe, president of the Kentucky County Clerks Association, said he has heard from several clerks who have religious objections to same-sex marriage, so they won't issue marriage licenses anymore. Some Kentucky county clerks refuse to issue marriage licenses following same-sex marriage ruling Politics and Government Kentucky.com

This will be coming up soon. This Hearing pending at SCOTUS is actually more pivotal and may wind up reversing Friday's Ruling. The choice the Court will face? Dictate to the Vatican and other church leaders which dire warnings in the New Testament Christians "have to ignore" or Uphold the 1st Amendment. The 9th Amendment means that last Friday's fundamental change to the Constitution cannot overshadow any other Constitutional right people enjoy...including the 1st.

So a Court that thought this was "all done and over with" will be chagrined to find this has just begun..

Fun fact: Did you know the Supreme Court cannot make fundamental or ill-conceived changes to the Constitution? Only the Congress and states can make those changes jointly. Friday's Ruling is unconstitutional by its very mechanics. And therefore states like Kentucky, Alabama, Texas and any other are not bound to abide by Friday's illegal Ruling.

That's what happens when Christians don't read their bibles

"it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also as a matter of conscience. This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, who give their full time to governing."
-- Romans 13:5-6

Hi Agit8r The Constitution as the secular authority DOES defend
1. Free Exercise of religion from establishment of beliefs by Govt
2. Equal protection of the laws from discrimination by Creed

Your point would stand if the protesting clerk was only denying licenses to gay couples: that would be against civil authority because it would not be equal but discriminating against some while serving others.

However, to recognize that ALL Marriage should be removed from the state since it involves religiously held beliefs, that is ENFORCING Constitutional law, not violating it.

The clerk does have the right to petition to redress grievances, and is seeking civil means of doing so,
given CONTRADICTORY instructions that are against the Constitution.

When the conflict over Marriage laws was first identified, it should be settled directly between the parties so NOBODY'S beliefs or equal protections are violated.

But since this was unlawfully adjudicated by the Court, which should not make laws respecting an establishment of religion, the Court ruling violated laws so the clerk is trying to address and correct that in the least obstructive way.

There can be other clerks assigned to the job until this is resolved.
But nobody should be punished for their beliefs. The Court set the people up to fail
because the govt cannot force anyone by law to change or compromise their beliefs.

The Court justices who didn't order mediation and consensus to keep this out of govt hands,
should all be held to account. Instead of taking one side or the other, they should all have agreed
that consensus by the people is required to make a religious or faith based decision, and they have
no authority to take sides. All the justices could have stood together and struck down ANY law that
was biased one way or the other; and only uphold laws written and passed by consensus of the people affected.

You show a lack of knowledge of the subject at hand. Let me help you out with that:

* * *
That some ascribe civil marriage a history dating back to Adam and his "wife" Eve, is absurdly laughable. The modern blend of civil recognition coupled with ecclesiastical solemnization dates back to 1753 when Hardwicke's Marriage act was passed. Before then--under the English Common Law, from which we obviously derive much of our legal tradition--marriage was either solemnized or not--and often not for the peasantry. Such became a civil matter only when it became the subject of a legal dispute, which called for evidence establishing a history of "habit and repute" such as witnesses testimony. This recognition by a civil magistrate being the basis for marital law then is our tradition as an Anglophone nation, one should think.

The tradition of "marriage" ascribed to Christianity hardly seems relevant to a discussion of civil law (the separation between the ecclesiastical and civil laws being older than the United States--and affirmed in no uncertain terms by our Constitution), but it is an interesting study nonetheless. The lore and legends of the Hebrews, which form the Old Testament of the Christian Bible, contain none of the precise terms that we use today to describe a husband, wife, or marriage (as noun or verb). In four instances the Old Testament uses the word "ba'al" (Anglicization of letters approximate) to refer to a husband. Two of these are in reference to women taken as plunder of war, as that word means "master". In the many other instances of "husband" the word translated ("iysh") means literally "man," as it does when the same word is used to refer to men or mankind generally. The same is true of "wife" ("Nashiym") meaning precisely "a woman" or plural "women" except in instances referring to Babylonian "queens" ("Shegal")--that word deriving from a root meaning to "violate" or "ravage."

The only verbs referring to the act of getting "married" are "chathan" (the father's action) meaning "give away" and "laqach" (the suitor's action) meaning "to take posession". And the Hebrew words that refer to the noun of "marriage" are "ownah" ("to dwell together) and "yashab" ("to dwell" or "abide"), an ironic similarity to the primitive state of civil marriage under the old common law. It would seem then that the "institution of marriage" as we know it, is a product of modernity, rather than ancient tradition of Occident or Orient.

The evolution that marriage has undergone--the franchising of cohabitation within the realm of the state, which now issues licenses, and arbitrates between spouses, and even on behalf of children--can be attributed largely to an economic movement; capitalism. That the laws of marriage had to adapt to include the sound protection of propertied interest among families, as part of a broader system of contract law, was inevitable given the broader distribution of property that free market economies brought. Similarly, it was inevitable that those who take part in the marketplace, but remain disenfranchised from its full benefits, would insist upon equal protection of their property and rights. It would seem that the institution of capitalist marriage could only be aided by this broadening of the franchise, and further, that resistance to it is the prattle of the Luddite.

***

Crackpot Doom Scandal Traditional Marriage

 

[Skylar]

This will be coming up soon. This Hearing pending at SCOTUS is actually more pivotal and may wind up reversing Friday's Ruling.

So its a week and change later. How did your 'pivotal hearing' that may wind up reversing Friday's ruling turn out?

Fun Fact: You don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about.

 

[emilynghiem]

You show a lack of knowledge of the subject at hand. Let me help you out with that:

* * *
That some ascribe civil marriage a history dating back to Adam and his "wife" Eve, is absurdly laughable. The modern blend of civil recognition coupled with ecclesiastical solemnization dates back to 1753 when Hardwicke's Marriage act was passed. Before then--under the English Common Law, from which we obviously derive much of our legal tradition--marriage was either solemnized or not--and often not for the peasantry. Such became a civil matter only when it became the subject of a legal dispute, which called for evidence establishing a history of "habit and repute" such as witnesses testimony. This recognition by a civil magistrate being the basis for marital law then is our tradition as an Anglophone nation, one should think.

The tradition of "marriage" ascribed to Christianity hardly seems relevant to a discussion of civil law (the separation between the ecclesiastical and civil laws being older than the United States--and affirmed in no uncertain terms by our Constitution), but it is an interesting study nonetheless. The lore and legends of the Hebrews, which form the Old Testament of the Christian Bible, contain none of the precise terms that we use today to describe a husband, wife, or marriage (as noun or verb). In four instances the Old Testament uses the word "ba'al" (Anglicization of letters approximate) to refer to a husband. Two of these are in reference to women taken as plunder of war, as that word means "master". In the many other instances of "husband" the word translated ("iysh") means literally "man," as it does when the same word is used to refer to men or mankind generally. The same is true of "wife" ("Nashiym") meaning precisely "a woman" or plural "women" except in instances referring to Babylonian "queens" ("Shegal")--that word deriving from a root meaning to "violate" or "ravage."

The only verbs referring to the act of getting "married" are "chathan" (the father's action) meaning "give away" and "laqach" (the suitor's action) meaning "to take posession". And the Hebrew words that refer to the noun of "marriage" are "ownah" ("to dwell together) and "yashab" ("to dwell" or "abide"), an ironic similarity to the primitive state of civil marriage under the old common law. It would seem then that the "institution of marriage" as we know it, is a product of modernity, rather than ancient tradition of Occident or Orient.

The evolution that marriage has undergone--the franchising of cohabitation within the realm of the state, which now issues licenses, and arbitrates between spouses, and even on behalf of children--can be attributed largely to an economic movement; capitalism. That the laws of marriage had to adapt to include the sound protection of propertied interest among families, as part of a broader system of contract law, was inevitable given the broader distribution of property that free market economies brought. Similarly, it was inevitable that those who take part in the marketplace, but remain disenfranchised from its full benefits, would insist upon equal protection of their property and rights. It would seem that the institution of capitalist marriage could only be aided by this broadening of the franchise, and further, that resistance to it is the prattle of the Luddite.

***

Crackpot Doom Scandal Traditional Marriage

Hi Agit8r
Unlike the poor impression I gave you, I DO look at history -- both spiritually, economically
and politically.

I do trace the shift in marriage laws from the days of MATRIARCHY where women passed property and knowledge from mother to daughter and DIDN'T NEED MARRIAGE to confirm whom their children were to control their lineage.
The mothers KNEW who were their children and heirs naturally.

Then came the stage of PATRIARCHY and power passed from fathers to son.
UNLIKE women, Men CANNOT TELL if their children are theirs unless they ENFORCE
laws controlling women and children as "property of the estate" and enforce LAWS against ADULTERY to CONTROL OTHER MEN from affecting their family lineage. They have to keep their wives loyal to the husband in order to control inheritance and "primogeniture" if authority is going to pass from Father to Son. Men do NOT have the same advantage of women who didn't need written laws to run their matriarchal families and societies. For men to protect their power and property, that's where all these politics becomes necessary, for men to stand up to other men. Much of this chest-beating to seek political dominance is herd or pack mentality, to be the head alpha male that all other males and females bow to, in order to keep social order.

The control of birthright and thus of women was done through written marriage and property laws, where the clergy of the church were the literate scribes who were entrusted with these written contracts. When the people are illiterate, they depend on the church and people in power with authority, knowledge and records of the laws. These laws were written by men for men, as patriarchal cultures recognize the men as heads of families and heads of states who are responsible for writing enforcing and following laws. It's all about controlling property and the power that comes with it.

There are even references in the Bible to the genocides of female goddess/fertility tribes
in order to wipe out the earth-based egalitarian cultures, and replace with patriarchal leadership under Mosaic laws to set this next phase. (the final phase is to equalize the respect between male and female roles, in relationships and in society collectively, in order to restore balance, and that is why the story of Christ Jesus represents the process of Restorative Justice to establish equal justice, peace and truth to end all strife and conflict.)

Because there was no separation of church and state, the same elders in charge of the church exerted influence on other realms of power. (NOTE: I met others who look at the Socioeconomic history, not the spiritual religious history, and blame the power shift in male dominance on the higher value placed on Men as meat hunters Managers/Owners who could manage distribution of these resources, versus the lower social class and value of women and field workers as fruit and vegetable gatherers where these resources are not as valued in society as meat.)

Whether you look at it as a battle to separate church from state, class against class, nation against nation, the world has long fought wars to separate or liberate one group from being under the dominating oppress of another.

THAT is the underlying battle, whether male-female, class dominance, national identity.

This is the same driving force behind any political revolution from the US breaking from Britain, the people breaking from the Catholic Authority in Rome, EVERY persona and every culture, nation or identity eventually seeks to break free and become independent and sovereign, and then when that group breaks down into smaller groups, they break free until people are free as individuals to associate and represent themselves at will.

We are constantly breaking down larger groups into smaller ones until everyone has self-representation and self-govt to the degree they want it. Most find a balance between individual and collective authority. Where we disagree, we end up separating and going under separate policies. This is the story of humanity and process of life.

That's how I frame everything I look at going on. That humanity is heading toward sustainable means of equal justice, peace and harmony in society, developing programs for education and training in every field so all people and nations can be equally self-sufficient.

So the changes in marriage laws are part of that growing TOWARD independence.

This idea of DEPENDING on govt to manage one's affairs is going the other way.
That is what the argument is about:

NOT just about "gay marriage" but INSTITUTING IT THROUGH THE STATE

If you wouldn't want Christianity BANNED that doesn't mean you want it IMPLEMENTED THROUGH THE STATE

You can want health care help for all people, but NOT WANT IT MANDATED THROUGH THE FEDERAL GOVT. Those are TWO separate issues -- Not EVERYTHING has to be mandated through the state before it is set up as a choice. We are still arguing about "separation of church and state" but now it's the liberals turn to get yelled at by conservatives who
don't want beliefs nationalized through govt!

If you keep Christianity, marriage, etc out of the state, then no problem.

just like the Catholics, Mormons, etc. ANY GROUP can set up their own
social structures, funding, representatives and authority to manage benefits for THEIR MEMBERS.

We don't have to take the Mormon way of managing marriage and benefits
and IMPLEMENT IT THROUGH THE STATE.

You can organize that on your own.

The Democrats need to get serious and use the political influence they have
to organize their own health care and benefits for their members and the battle would already be won by now.

This greed to have public control of other people from other groups does not have to be the issue.

Just set it up for people who agree already, and all those resources could be saved
and invested directly in programs and quit wasting billions of dollars fighting politically to impose programs for everyone.

Democrats I know yell and scream over war spending, and anything else they believe is wasting and costing taxpayer money.

So why not let both parties organize what they do and do not want to fund.
And give them either federal grants or tax breaks to develop the programs that represent their members!

 

[Agit8r]

You show a lack of knowledge of the subject at hand. Let me help you out with that:

* * *
That some ascribe civil marriage a history dating back to Adam and his "wife" Eve, is absurdly laughable. The modern blend of civil recognition coupled with ecclesiastical solemnization dates back to 1753 when Hardwicke's Marriage act was passed. Before then--under the English Common Law, from which we obviously derive much of our legal tradition--marriage was either solemnized or not--and often not for the peasantry. Such became a civil matter only when it became the subject of a legal dispute, which called for evidence establishing a history of "habit and repute" such as witnesses testimony. This recognition by a civil magistrate being the basis for marital law then is our tradition as an Anglophone nation, one should think.

The tradition of "marriage" ascribed to Christianity hardly seems relevant to a discussion of civil law (the separation between the ecclesiastical and civil laws being older than the United States--and affirmed in no uncertain terms by our Constitution), but it is an interesting study nonetheless. The lore and legends of the Hebrews, which form the Old Testament of the Christian Bible, contain none of the precise terms that we use today to describe a husband, wife, or marriage (as noun or verb). In four instances the Old Testament uses the word "ba'al" (Anglicization of letters approximate) to refer to a husband. Two of these are in reference to women taken as plunder of war, as that word means "master". In the many other instances of "husband" the word translated ("iysh") means literally "man," as it does when the same word is used to refer to men or mankind generally. The same is true of "wife" ("Nashiym") meaning precisely "a woman" or plural "women" except in instances referring to Babylonian "queens" ("Shegal")--that word deriving from a root meaning to "violate" or "ravage."

The only verbs referring to the act of getting "married" are "chathan" (the father's action) meaning "give away" and "laqach" (the suitor's action) meaning "to take posession". And the Hebrew words that refer to the noun of "marriage" are "ownah" ("to dwell together) and "yashab" ("to dwell" or "abide"), an ironic similarity to the primitive state of civil marriage under the old common law. It would seem then that the "institution of marriage" as we know it, is a product of modernity, rather than ancient tradition of Occident or Orient.

The evolution that marriage has undergone--the franchising of cohabitation within the realm of the state, which now issues licenses, and arbitrates between spouses, and even on behalf of children--can be attributed largely to an economic movement; capitalism. That the laws of marriage had to adapt to include the sound protection of propertied interest among families, as part of a broader system of contract law, was inevitable given the broader distribution of property that free market economies brought. Similarly, it was inevitable that those who take part in the marketplace, but remain disenfranchised from its full benefits, would insist upon equal protection of their property and rights. It would seem that the institution of capitalist marriage could only be aided by this broadening of the franchise, and further, that resistance to it is the prattle of the Luddite.

***

Crackpot Doom Scandal Traditional Marriage

Hi Agit8r
Unlike the poor impression I gave you,
I do trace the shift in marriage laws from the days of MATRIARCHY where women passed property and knowledge from mother to daughter and DIDN'T NEED MARRIAGE to confirm whom their children were to control their lineage.
The mothers KNEW who were their children and heirs naturally.

Then came the stage of PATRIARCHY and power passed from fathers to son.
UNLIKE women, Men CANNOT TELL if their children are theirs unless they ENFORCE
laws controlling women and children as "property of the estate" and enforce LAWS against ADULTERY
to CONTROL OTHER MEN from affecting their family lineage. They have to keep their wives loyal to the husband
in order to control inheritance and "primogeniture" if authority is going to pass from Father to Son.

The control of birthright and thus of women was done through written marriage and property laws,
where the clergy of the church were the literate scribes who were entrusted with these written contracts.
When the people are illiterate, they depend on the church and people in power who keep track and have knowledge
and records of the laws.

Because there was no separation of church and state, the same elders in charge of the church exerted influence
on other realms of power.

the world has long fought wars to separate church from state, and one group from dominating another.
This is the same driving force behind any political revolution from the US breaking from Britain,
the people breaking from the Catholic Authority in Rome, EVERY persona and every culture, nation or identity
eventually seeks to break free and become independent and sovereign, and then when that group breaks down
into smaller groups, they break free until people are free as individuals to associate and represent themselves at will.

We are constantly breaking down larger groups into smaller ones until everyone has self-representation
and self-govt to the degree they want it. Most find a balance between individual and collective authority.
Where we disagree, we end up separating and going under separate policies. This is the story of humanity
and process of life.

So the changes in marriage laws are part of that growing TOWARD independence.

This idea of DEPENDING on govt to manage one's affairs is going the other way.

That is what the argument is about

NOT just about "gay marriage" but INSTITUTING IT THROUGH THE STATE

If you wouldn't want Christianity BANNED that doesn't mean you want it IMPLEMENTED THROUGH THE STATE

If you keep Christianity, marriage, etc out of the state, then no problem.

just like the Catholics, Mormons, etc. ANY GROUP can set up their own
social structures, funding, representatives and authority to manage benefits for THEIR MEMBERS.

We don't have to take the Mormon way of managing marriage and benefits
and IMPLEMENT IT THROUGH THE STATE.

You can organize that on your own.

The Democrats need to get serious and use the political influence they have
to organize their own health care and benefits for their members and the battle would already be won by now.

This greed to have public control of other people from other groups does not have to be the issue.

Just set it up for people who agree already, and all those resources could be saved
and invested directly in programs and quit wasting billions of dollars fighting politically to impose programs for everyone.

Democrats I know yell and scream over war spending, and anything else they believe is wasting and costing taxpayer money.

So why not let both parties organize what they do and do not want to fund.
And give them either federal grants or tax breaks to develop the programs that represent their members!

Then they should go about it through the legislative process. We don't need activist county clerks ruling by decree.

 

[SwimExpert]

I do trace the shift in marriage laws from the days of MATRIARCHY where women passed property and knowledge from mother to daughter and DIDN'T NEED MARRIAGE to confirm whom their children were to control their lineage.
The mothers KNEW who were their children and heirs naturally.

What fantasy are you living? Matriarchal societies are rare in human history and have never been the norm, even among pre homo Sapiens species of humans.

 

[emilynghiem]

You show a lack of knowledge of the subject at hand. Let me help you out with that:

* * *
That some ascribe civil marriage a history dating back to Adam and his "wife" Eve, is absurdly laughable. The modern blend of civil recognition coupled with ecclesiastical solemnization dates back to 1753 when Hardwicke's Marriage act was passed. Before then--under the English Common Law, from which we obviously derive much of our legal tradition--marriage was either solemnized or not--and often not for the peasantry. Such became a civil matter only when it became the subject of a legal dispute, which called for evidence establishing a history of "habit and repute" such as witnesses testimony. This recognition by a civil magistrate being the basis for marital law then is our tradition as an Anglophone nation, one should think.

The tradition of "marriage" ascribed to Christianity hardly seems relevant to a discussion of civil law (the separation between the ecclesiastical and civil laws being older than the United States--and affirmed in no uncertain terms by our Constitution), but it is an interesting study nonetheless. The lore and legends of the Hebrews, which form the Old Testament of the Christian Bible, contain none of the precise terms that we use today to describe a husband, wife, or marriage (as noun or verb). In four instances the Old Testament uses the word "ba'al" (Anglicization of letters approximate) to refer to a husband. Two of these are in reference to women taken as plunder of war, as that word means "master". In the many other instances of "husband" the word translated ("iysh") means literally "man," as it does when the same word is used to refer to men or mankind generally. The same is true of "wife" ("Nashiym") meaning precisely "a woman" or plural "women" except in instances referring to Babylonian "queens" ("Shegal")--that word deriving from a root meaning to "violate" or "ravage."

The only verbs referring to the act of getting "married" are "chathan" (the father's action) meaning "give away" and "laqach" (the suitor's action) meaning "to take posession". And the Hebrew words that refer to the noun of "marriage" are "ownah" ("to dwell together) and "yashab" ("to dwell" or "abide"), an ironic similarity to the primitive state of civil marriage under the old common law. It would seem then that the "institution of marriage" as we know it, is a product of modernity, rather than ancient tradition of Occident or Orient.

The evolution that marriage has undergone--the franchising of cohabitation within the realm of the state, which now issues licenses, and arbitrates between spouses, and even on behalf of children--can be attributed largely to an economic movement; capitalism. That the laws of marriage had to adapt to include the sound protection of propertied interest among families, as part of a broader system of contract law, was inevitable given the broader distribution of property that free market economies brought. Similarly, it was inevitable that those who take part in the marketplace, but remain disenfranchised from its full benefits, would insist upon equal protection of their property and rights. It would seem that the institution of capitalist marriage could only be aided by this broadening of the franchise, and further, that resistance to it is the prattle of the Luddite.

***

Crackpot Doom Scandal Traditional Marriage

Hi Agit8r
Unlike the poor impression I gave you,
I do trace the shift in marriage laws from the days of MATRIARCHY where women passed property and knowledge from mother to daughter and DIDN'T NEED MARRIAGE to confirm whom their children were to control their lineage.
The mothers KNEW who were their children and heirs naturally.

Then came the stage of PATRIARCHY and power passed from fathers to son.
UNLIKE women, Men CANNOT TELL if their children are theirs unless they ENFORCE
laws controlling women and children as "property of the estate" and enforce LAWS against ADULTERY
to CONTROL OTHER MEN from affecting their family lineage. They have to keep their wives loyal to the husband
in order to control inheritance and "primogeniture" if authority is going to pass from Father to Son.

The control of birthright and thus of women was done through written marriage and property laws,
where the clergy of the church were the literate scribes who were entrusted with these written contracts.
When the people are illiterate, they depend on the church and people in power who keep track and have knowledge
and records of the laws.

Because there was no separation of church and state, the same elders in charge of the church exerted influence
on other realms of power.

the world has long fought wars to separate church from state, and one group from dominating another.
This is the same driving force behind any political revolution from the US breaking from Britain,
the people breaking from the Catholic Authority in Rome, EVERY persona and every culture, nation or identity
eventually seeks to break free and become independent and sovereign, and then when that group breaks down
into smaller groups, they break free until people are free as individuals to associate and represent themselves at will.

We are constantly breaking down larger groups into smaller ones until everyone has self-representation
and self-govt to the degree they want it. Most find a balance between individual and collective authority.
Where we disagree, we end up separating and going under separate policies. This is the story of humanity
and process of life.

So the changes in marriage laws are part of that growing TOWARD independence.

This idea of DEPENDING on govt to manage one's affairs is going the other way.

That is what the argument is about

NOT just about "gay marriage" but INSTITUTING IT THROUGH THE STATE

If you wouldn't want Christianity BANNED that doesn't mean you want it IMPLEMENTED THROUGH THE STATE

If you keep Christianity, marriage, etc out of the state, then no problem.

just like the Catholics, Mormons, etc. ANY GROUP can set up their own
social structures, funding, representatives and authority to manage benefits for THEIR MEMBERS.

We don't have to take the Mormon way of managing marriage and benefits
and IMPLEMENT IT THROUGH THE STATE.

You can organize that on your own.

The Democrats need to get serious and use the political influence they have
to organize their own health care and benefits for their members and the battle would already be won by now.

This greed to have public control of other people from other groups does not have to be the issue.

Just set it up for people who agree already, and all those resources could be saved
and invested directly in programs and quit wasting billions of dollars fighting politically to impose programs for everyone.

Democrats I know yell and scream over war spending, and anything else they believe is wasting and costing taxpayer money.

So why not let both parties organize what they do and do not want to fund.
And give them either federal grants or tax breaks to develop the programs that represent their members!

Then they should go about it through the legislative process. We don't need activist county clerks ruling by decree.

Yes Agit8r
And by the SAME token the laws on gay marriage should have gone through the LEGISLATIVE PROCESS IN THE FIRST PLACE. And not depend on the Judicial to write laws for the people.

If the STATES do not have authority to dictate private marriage policies for their entire population, certainly 9 judges in DC have no business deciding private marriage beliefs for the entire nation.

All the Judicial ruling needed to do was declare the BAN unconstitutional
(then charge the state with responsibility for writing laws that accommodate
both beliefs EQUALLY OR ELSE strike down and remove ALL marriage from the state
if this cannot be agreed upon how to make it equally accessible for people of all beliefs.
The Judicial branch does not make decisions for people involving religious or faith-based personal beliefs, but determines if the decisions made as laws are constitutional or not.
Bans on abortion were struck down by "substantive due process and privacy" but it is still up to the legislatures to write out the terms people agree on, and that's where people are stuck
negotiating different beliefs that are both supposed to be equally protected and represented if p public policy state or federal govt is involved since that is public; if it involves beliefs, the state cannot endorse one over the other or it violates First and Fourteenth equal protections.)

The courts did not have consent of the people or Constitutional authority to
establish gay marriage for the people or the states. That is going too far.

There is a difference between removing a ban and then enforcing requirements through the state. Two totally different steps.

The people are still in charge of writing their own contracts for their personal affairs.
This should not be given to the state unless people AGREE.

and clearly from the reaction, not all people agree to give this authority to the state.

We do need to fix this locally through the states,
and write the legislation CORRECTLY.

I agree with you on that, so much I would say the Courts should have
ordered BOTH sides to rewrite the laws and keep it OUT OF THEIR COURT.

The most that is constitutional is saying the court does not have authority
to decide for the people; the ban is unconstitutional as well as imposing
traditional marriage that discriminates against gay marriage. NEITHER side
can discriminate against the other. The state laws need to be neutral, inclusive
and mutually agreed upon to represent ALL people in that state, or else
be struck down and REMOVED if they contain any religious bias ONE WAY OR ANOTHER.

The courts should NOT decide one side over the other, or that is violating
the First Amendment anti-establishment clause and the Fourteenth Amendment
equal protections and/or Civil Rights protections against discrimination by creed.

The same laws that protect gays also protect all other religious views from
being imposed upon through the state; and likewise neither should gay beliefs
or policies be implemented through the state any more than other religious faith based beliefs.

 

[Syriusly]

You show a lack of knowledge of the subject at hand. Let me help you out with that:

* * *
That some ascribe civil marriage a history dating back to Adam and his "wife" Eve, is absurdly laughable. The modern blend of civil recognition coupled with ecclesiastical solemnization dates back to 1753 when Hardwicke's Marriage act was passed. Before then--under the English Common Law, from which we obviously derive much of our legal tradition--marriage was either solemnized or not--and often not for the peasantry. Such became a civil matter only when it became the subject of a legal dispute, which called for evidence establishing a history of "habit and repute" such as witnesses testimony. This recognition by a civil magistrate being the basis for marital law then is our tradition as an Anglophone nation, one should think.

The tradition of "marriage" ascribed to Christianity hardly seems relevant to a discussion of civil law (the separation between the ecclesiastical and civil laws being older than the United States--and affirmed in no uncertain terms by our Constitution), but it is an interesting study nonetheless. The lore and legends of the Hebrews, which form the Old Testament of the Christian Bible, contain none of the precise terms that we use today to describe a husband, wife, or marriage (as noun or verb). In four instances the Old Testament uses the word "ba'al" (Anglicization of letters approximate) to refer to a husband. Two of these are in reference to women taken as plunder of war, as that word means "master". In the many other instances of "husband" the word translated ("iysh") means literally "man," as it does when the same word is used to refer to men or mankind generally. The same is true of "wife" ("Nashiym") meaning precisely "a woman" or plural "women" except in instances referring to Babylonian "queens" ("Shegal")--that word deriving from a root meaning to "violate" or "ravage."

The only verbs referring to the act of getting "married" are "chathan" (the father's action) meaning "give away" and "laqach" (the suitor's action) meaning "to take posession". And the Hebrew words that refer to the noun of "marriage" are "ownah" ("to dwell together) and "yashab" ("to dwell" or "abide"), an ironic similarity to the primitive state of civil marriage under the old common law. It would seem then that the "institution of marriage" as we know it, is a product of modernity, rather than ancient tradition of Occident or Orient.

The evolution that marriage has undergone--the franchising of cohabitation within the realm of the state, which now issues licenses, and arbitrates between spouses, and even on behalf of children--can be attributed largely to an economic movement; capitalism. That the laws of marriage had to adapt to include the sound protection of propertied interest among families, as part of a broader system of contract law, was inevitable given the broader distribution of property that free market economies brought. Similarly, it was inevitable that those who take part in the marketplace, but remain disenfranchised from its full benefits, would insist upon equal protection of their property and rights. It would seem that the institution of capitalist marriage could only be aided by this broadening of the franchise, and further, that resistance to it is the prattle of the Luddite.

***

Crackpot Doom Scandal Traditional Marriage

Hi Agit8r
Unlike the poor impression I gave you,
I do trace the shift in marriage laws from the days of MATRIARCHY where women passed property and knowledge from mother to daughter and DIDN'T NEED MARRIAGE to confirm whom their children were to control their lineage.
The mothers KNEW who were their children and heirs naturally.

Then came the stage of PATRIARCHY and power passed from fathers to son.
UNLIKE women, Men CANNOT TELL if their children are theirs unless they ENFORCE
laws controlling women and children as "property of the estate" and enforce LAWS against ADULTERY
to CONTROL OTHER MEN from affecting their family lineage. They have to keep their wives loyal to the husband
in order to control inheritance and "primogeniture" if authority is going to pass from Father to Son.

The control of birthright and thus of women was done through written marriage and property laws,
where the clergy of the church were the literate scribes who were entrusted with these written contracts.
When the people are illiterate, they depend on the church and people in power who keep track and have knowledge
and records of the laws.

Because there was no separation of church and state, the same elders in charge of the church exerted influence
on other realms of power.

the world has long fought wars to separate church from state, and one group from dominating another.
This is the same driving force behind any political revolution from the US breaking from Britain,
the people breaking from the Catholic Authority in Rome, EVERY persona and every culture, nation or identity
eventually seeks to break free and become independent and sovereign, and then when that group breaks down
into smaller groups, they break free until people are free as individuals to associate and represent themselves at will.

We are constantly breaking down larger groups into smaller ones until everyone has self-representation
and self-govt to the degree they want it. Most find a balance between individual and collective authority.
Where we disagree, we end up separating and going under separate policies. This is the story of humanity
and process of life.

So the changes in marriage laws are part of that growing TOWARD independence.

This idea of DEPENDING on govt to manage one's affairs is going the other way.

That is what the argument is about

NOT just about "gay marriage" but INSTITUTING IT THROUGH THE STATE

If you wouldn't want Christianity BANNED that doesn't mean you want it IMPLEMENTED THROUGH THE STATE

If you keep Christianity, marriage, etc out of the state, then no problem.

just like the Catholics, Mormons, etc. ANY GROUP can set up their own
social structures, funding, representatives and authority to manage benefits for THEIR MEMBERS.

We don't have to take the Mormon way of managing marriage and benefits
and IMPLEMENT IT THROUGH THE STATE.

You can organize that on your own.

The Democrats need to get serious and use the political influence they have
to organize their own health care and benefits for their members and the battle would already be won by now.

This greed to have public control of other people from other groups does not have to be the issue.

Just set it up for people who agree already, and all those resources could be saved
and invested directly in programs and quit wasting billions of dollars fighting politically to impose programs for everyone.

Democrats I know yell and scream over war spending, and anything else they believe is wasting and costing taxpayer money.

So why not let both parties organize what they do and do not want to fund.
And give them either federal grants or tax breaks to develop the programs that represent their members!

Then they should go about it through the legislative process. We don't need activist county clerks ruling by decree.

Dear Agit8r
Yes, and by the SAME token the laws on gay marriage should have gone through the LEGISLATIVE PROCESS and not depend on the Judicial to write laws for the people.

All the Judicial ruling needed to do was declare the BAN unconstitutional.

And that is what they did- rendering such bans unenforceable.

No further instructions were necessary.

 

[emilynghiem]

This will be coming up soon. This Hearing pending at SCOTUS is actually more pivotal and may wind up reversing Friday's Ruling.

So its a week and change later. How did your 'pivotal hearing' that may wind up reversing Friday's ruling turn out?

Fun Fact: You don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about.

Dear Skylar
* And the Constitution has been in force over 200 years (or over 400 to quote a Democrat in Congress)
and the Democrats still do not understand the
* separate role of the Judicial from Legislative authority to write laws,
* and don't respect the rights reserved to the people and states
that Federal Govt is not expressly authorized in the Constitution to govern WITHOUT A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT

* And liberals have been yelling about "separation of church and state" for HOW MANY YEARS?
Yet REFUSE to enforce this concept when it comes to THEIR beliefs about
"right to marriage" and "right to health care" -- INSTEAD now THEY want to abuse govt to legislate, establish and mandate through federal or state laws (again, where they make no distinction anyway) these beliefs on the ENTIRE NATION.
And even PENALIZE and persecute people of different beliefs who "don't have equal rights to practice theirs" but are expected to fund and endorse opposing beliefs of liberals and Democratic Party Platforms that violate the religious and political beliefs of dissenters.

None of that counts to liberal Democrats.

Even though the Constitution still stands after hundreds of years.
The Democrats do not care to educate or enforce it but seek to subvert it for political agenda.

So Skylar how long can this double standard go on?
Before people finally recognize that political beliefs should be treated equally as religious beliefs.
And kept out of govt?

The Democrats have been fighting for this separation for how long?
And when are they going to start enforcing it themselves?

 

[emilynghiem]

I do trace the shift in marriage laws from the days of MATRIARCHY where women passed property and knowledge from mother to daughter and DIDN'T NEED MARRIAGE to confirm whom their children were to control their lineage.
The mothers KNEW who were their children and heirs naturally.

What fantasy are you living? Matriarchal societies are rare in human history and have never been the norm, even among pre homo Sapiens species of humans.

Before the patriarchal traditions that dominate today,
there were matriarchal, female goddess and fertility religions and cultures.

It makes sense that when human awareness of the birth/life/death process first evolves with spirituality,
then the women were seen as givers or creators of life. Mother Earth Mother Nature, the art symbols
left behind were on these themes of the world and women tied in with life and creation.

The Oldest civilization, Catal Huyuk, was rich with archaelogical sites
that an anthropologist friend of mine had worked with teams and tours to participate in digs.

She said it was well known there were written records of the Matriarchal societies
passing property from mothers to daughters, and anyone who denied this was doing so deliberately.

The art historians have the artifacts that show thousands of years of matriarchal and female goddess worship.
These were dated in the older stages of ancient world history,
long before the written laws and patriarchal societies took dominance.

Where do you think the references to Mother Earth and Nature came from?
These are old, these are in the Greek myths and other cultures.

This is well established.
I'm sorry you don't count native and pagan cultures as historically or socially significant
in the development of humanity. But my pagan friends would laugh in your face if you
think the patriarchal lineage is the only thing that has ever had power in history.

The whole movement to restore the natural knowledge of living in peace and harmony
with the earth is to recognize the GENOCIDES committed to wipe out indigenous tribes
and cultures.

Just because GENOCIDE was committed to establish a dominant group, and kill off the
previous tribes, doesn't make it the only one recognized in history.

The whole story of Adam and Eve "falling out of the Garden" is the loss of the
indigenous tribes that used to live in harmony with the land. We lost our innocence
when we gained self-awareness of free human will vs. collective responsibility and nature.
We can go too far with ego and selfish interests, and become destructive when we start
competing for control of power and resources. So that is what the Bible symbolizes.
That we lost our natural balance and have to go through an entire Spiritual Process
of coming to terms with spiritual knowledge and regaining the same balance,
but with eyes wide open fully aware of the laws of science and humanity, nature and society,
in order to work with the world and still be at peace spiritually with the whole of humanity and life in the world.

The challenge now is to restore natural peace balance and harmony
Not as innocent children following by blind faith
but fully aware adults making choices by free will and responsibility.

http www.houstonprogressive.org
http www.houstonprogressive.org