Kentucky Clerks Refuse to Issue Gay Marriage Licenses

[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.

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.

Here in WA it was passed by a popular referendum. Why should other states interfere with the obligation of contracts made here?

 

[SwimExpert]

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

Oh look, a cut and paste.

Not only that, but it's a ridiculously false claim. Yes, there were cultures that recognized female deities. Yes, there were cultures that paid a great deal of respect and homage to the female qualities of giving birth. That does not mean that the cultures were matriarchal. It's faulty logic.

Furthermore, we already know definitively that these cultures were not matriarchal. The cultures you are referring to are ancient Celtic cultures, where ancient Pagans practiced polytheistic nature worship. Contrary to what flufferbunny "Neo-Pagans" like Silver Ravenwolf might tell you, that these people worshipped femininity above masculinity is pure bunk, and without any evidence. In general, Celtic pantheons usually attributed components of nature to goddesses, and human skills and talents to gods. Celtic practice also tended to pair gods and goddesses, with few examples of one or the other appearing separately.

The fundamental principle of Celtic Pagan duality was precisely the inherently vital necessity of both male and female in nature and in life. Women gave birth, but men provided the seed. Their importance was equal, the debt owed to them was equal. Your inability to understand that duality, and to come here broadcasting your corrupted ideas about these beliefs and practices, bastardizes the very essence of what they were/are. Celtic paganism was, above all else, a worship of nature's inherent tendencies for balance. Hence, the repetitious cycles of nature identified their holy days, the joining of man and woman in the act of physical love was held as a sacred act, the ethical code focused on causality and the return of energy to the sender. You don't understand any of this. You twist and distort it all in your small, narrow mind into little more than Yahweh in a skirt.

Practices and beliefs were very localized and typically varied from village to village to some degree or another, with many villages owing patronage to one particular deity or another. There is little to no evidence that there was ever any group that exclusively practices female worship, or abandoned the central conception of duality common in all other forms of Celtic Paganism. The only evidence of singular Goddess worship comes from the claims of Julius Caesar, which most modern scholars believe to be unreliable and a reflection of Caesar's own bias and attempts to explain his observations through a Roman compatible lens.

Aside from your failure to accurately understand Celtic religious beliefs and practices, the historical record furthermore demolishes the notion that these cultures were matriarchal. It seems clear that ancient Celts paid women an astounding degree of equality compared to their contemporary counterparts. Nevertheless, the available evidence indicates that Celtic societies were patriarchal at their core. Perhaps the most important evidence to this effect is that those societies remained patriarchal well into the recorded history, up to modern times. Cultures don't simply flip switches and magically undergo such dramatic changes in their fundamental structure. Even the powerful cultural influence of ancient Rome, which spread its own language across Europe, from the Atlantic Ocean all the way to the borders of modern Ukraine, could not account for such a change. For example, even where the Iberian peninsula completely lost its own languages and where the Roman language persists to this day, the people never adopted Roman convention of combining two personal names with a family name. Instead, the practice of patronymic naming conventions remained, indicating the preceding Celtic society was patriarchal. It was not until the past few centuries that Spain officially changed to a more Romanized surname format, and even still the modern convention retains a patronymic quality.

It makes sense that

In other words, your claims are not based on any examination of evidence. They are merely being offered as an inference you expect people to draw from cursory (and horribly inaccurate) vague tidbits of information.

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.

And a simple scan of Wikipedia would belie a complete lack of evidence to imply a matriarchal society there.

Çatalhöyük had no apparent social classes, as no houses with distinctive features (belonging to royalty or religious hierarchy, for example) have been found so far. The most recent investigations also reveal little social distinction based on gender, with men and women receiving equivalent nutrition and seeming to have equal social status, as typically found in Paleolithic cultures.[17][18][19]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Çatalhöyük#Culture

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.

In other words: No evidence to support the bullshit claim. Despite it being "well known" nobody seems to know it.

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.

Oh, how convenient. So evidence exists. But nobody can actually see the evidence.

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.

I already explained that. Gods were typically associated with skills and talents, goddesses were typically associated with features of nature. Thus there was Mother Nature, and there was Cerunnous the Hunter.

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.

Your "Pagan" friends are clueless idiots who are treating spirituality as a shiny toy. I am Pagan. I take my spirituality very seriously. I have studied the history of Pagan practices extensively. I don't listen to New Age quacks who make up their own shit and claim it's some kind of ancient mumbo-jumbo just to lend credence to their desperate need for attention and desire to drive an agenda.

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.

Oh Jesus fuck, I'm out. You're batshit crazy.

 

[Syriusly]

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
?

Actually it is just you who do not understand the role of the judiciary.

Luckily the Supreme Court does.

 

[Skylar]

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

Its possible that the judiciary doesn't understand the constitution, the law, precedent, or its role. Its far more likely that you don't understand the constitution, the law, or the role of the judiciary. As interpreting the constitution is most definitely the role of the judiciary. According to who? According to the Federalist Papers:

The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents.

Alexander Hamilton
Federalist Paper 78

What you call 'writing laws' is merely weighing those laws against the constitution. If those laws violate the constitution or abrogate rights, they're invalid. And frankly, should be.

Oh, and the States don't have rights. Making any reference to the states and their 'reserve rights' extra-constitutional. States have powers. People have rights. And only people. Read the 9th and 10th amendments respectively.

The rest of your post has nothing to do with what we're discussing.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Meanwhile, in the real world:

'After the Supreme Court ruling, Kentucky Gov. Steve Beshear told county clerks to immediately issue marriage licenses to gay couples.

"Neither your oath nor the Supreme Court dictates what you must believe. But as elected officials, they do prescribe how we must act," Beshear wrote in a letter to the clerks. "Effective today, Kentucky will recognize as valid all same sex marriages performed in other states and in Kentucky."'

Marriage licenses issued in Kentucky to same-sex couples - GreenwichTime

 

[Skylar]

And another of Sil's meaningless predictions based on reams of pseudo-legal gibberish is again splattered on the windshield of reality.

I swear, you can almost chart the future by paying careful attention to Sil's predictions. And then anticipating the exact opposite.

 

[emilynghiem]

(1)

What you call 'writing laws' is merely weighing those laws against the constitution. If those laws violate the constitution or abrogate rights, they're invalid. And frankly, should be.

Hi Skylar Thank you for replying in detailed explanation, so we can compare where we agree/disagree.
(1)A. YES what you say above I AGREE with about "striking DOWN" laws that are unconstitutional.
And I AGREE that the BAN on gay marriage is unconstitutional.
(2)B. what I was saying the Judiciary does NOT have the right to do is ESTABLISH the INTERPRETATION
that just because you strike down the BAN, then it ENDORSES and NECESSITATES implementation
of gay marriage through the state.

You blended these two together, when I was AGREEING to A, and OBJECTING to B.

(2)
(A) Oh, and the States don't have rights. Making any reference to the states and their 'reserve rights' extra-constitutional. States have powers. People have rights. And only people. Read the 9th and 10th amendments respectively.

(2) (A) That's fine if you want to say States POWERS instead of STATES RIGHTS.
Some people equate RIGHTS with POWER, some people don't.
We are meaning the same or similar/close enough.

Skylar I would say we are close enough to agreeing on (2) I would chalk it up as agreeing
and not divide over the terms.

But on that note
(2)(B) to people who DO believe states have sovereignty meaning RIGHTS,
I am okay letting them use that language also! I am not going to argue if people
use the TERM sovereignty, rights, power, etc if we are talking about CONSENT
and public/people's authority reflected in the laws. Whatever you or others call that
(rights, power, sovereignty, etc. I go by what people CONSENT to, both principles
process and terms used, and use THAT to form a CONSENSUS on solutions.

So I will try to use COMMON terms that mean the same to both people.
If you want to use the term POWERS that's fine.

But just know that when I am working with a different person or group,
they may need to use the terms SOVEREIGNTY or States Rights to feel represented.
if that's the term they use, we'll have to work out if they are okay with POWER instead of RIGHTS.

The rest of your post has nothing to do with what we're discussing.

Please list the points you are talking about, summarized in your words.

If you put them in your own words, I can see what YOU mean by that.
(And if there were points that do apply, I can show you what I MEANT.)

It helps if you spell it out to find where we may be talking past each other:
Similar to (1) above,. I was actually making TWO separate points,
but you interpreted this as one so yes there was a conflict if you blend the two together.
If the concept had been clarified as TWO then this would match what you said, not contradict it at all.

With (2) this was more a matter of terminology.
But the concept is still there. Even if you call it State powers,
the State level is where people of that state COULD pass laws BY AGREEMENT
on things like health care, marriage, etc. (And YES, it still has to be constitutional with equal protection
for all against discrimination, and also I would add that any laws involving a personal political or
religious belief should require CONSENSUS to pass so that NOBODY'S beliefs are violated)

So we agree on that concept of State powers, I hope, even though people use different terms
of rights, powers, sovereignty, jurisdiction, authority, etc.

So whatever you mean by (3)
please spell out those points as you would summarize what you think the meaning is,
so we can pick that apart to find where we agree and where we don't but might be able to resolve it.

Just saying it doesn't apply doesn't resolve the issue or reason behind why I stated it.

Thanks Skylar!

 

[emilynghiem]

Hi Skylar Thanks again for talking this out in detail. if we can hash this out, then others can work through this also.

it may not require digging through the Federalist Papers but just understanding the ***FULL*** implication and impact of the First Amendment about Govt not respecting the "establishment of religion." IE: Not just organized labeled religion, but recognizing all people's beliefs equally on the level of religion, where Govt does NOT have the right to establish such matters FOR the people; but the people can establish it FOR themselves, either in private or through govt if there is public consensus on such a religious or faith-based policy.

There is a difference if it comes from CONSENT of the people or it is imposed through Govt by one group over another where there isn't full public consent, Huge difference when it comes to BELIEFS!

Would this help:
A. YES the role of the Judiciary is in interpreting law
B. but on issues of PERSONAL BELIEFS, not the legislative not the executive not the judiciary,
NO level of govt has the authority to MANDATE dictate or decide the beliefs that the entire nation or state
HAS TO FOLLOW. There is a LIMIT to what the Judiciary (or the Executive or Legislative) officials
can or cannot use their authority for.

Religious issues cannot be decided.

The people can make decisions on their own regarding beliefs, and then can AGREE to implement policies through the State that reflect where they agree on beliefs; but not the other way, the State or Federal Govts cannot dictate TO the people decisions on religious issues, especially in conflicts between two equal beliefs. When Christians or Conservatives push their beliefs through the Govt on others, this is protested as violating "separation of church and state"
but what about when SECULAR beliefs are pushed on people who believe differently, why isn't that recognized as abusing Govt to push a biased belief? people should be treated EQUALLY,
regardless if one person expresses their beliefs in a religious way, secular or political; if the conflict involves BELIEFS, then all people and all beliefs should be protected equally for those people/groups, and not imposed on others, or denied by others, where Govt is abused to impose a bias either opposing or favoring one view over another; the Govt ideally remains NEUTRAL.

What Govt CAN do are things like this
1. if a state has unconstitutionally BANNED the practice of gay marriage, which should be a free and equal choice under religious freedom, the Judiciary can interpret the Constitution to show this ban VIOLATES
religious freedom and equal protection of the laws

Where the Judiciary crossed the line into establishing a belief is going FURTHER than just striking down the ban. if you start requiring states to practice it, that is more than just striking down a ban.

In fact, there was at least one state that made it legal but without endorsing gay marriage.

The two are not synonymous.
As stated before, REMOVING a BAN prohibiting Christian practice
is NOT the same as REQUIRING a state to endorse and implement Christianity.

Another example:

2. if law enforcement or court ruling unconstitutionally BANNED or PUNISHED someone from exercising their religious freedom or free speech (such as a religious church group providing educational supplies to schoolchildren in Cuba, where the complainants won their case and were recognized as acting within their religious freedom to provide charity despite the Federal embargo/sanctions blocking their caravan of computer equipment from going into Cuba)

Then YES the Judiciary can STRIKE DOWN the ban or blockade preventing that group from operating
under religious freedom.

THIS IS NOT THE SAME AS THE JUDICIARY DECLARING THAT THE STATE MUST RECOGNIZE AND ENDORSE AND IMPLEMENT THE SAME PROGRAM OF PROVIDING COMPUTERS TO CUBA.

Skylar is this more clear?
There is a huge difference, a leap in logic, between (a) striking down a ban or prohibition on Constitutional grounds and (b) endorsing and defending the State implementing a policy as public for everyone to recognize and fund or else face prosecution. Huge difference there!!!

Does this help or not?

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

 

[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
?

Actually it is just you who do not understand the role of the judiciary.

Luckily the Supreme Court does.

See previous message Skylar C_Clayton_Jones Agit8r about understanding the First Amendment
and not abusing Govt to establish nationalized beliefs, religious or faith-based issues for the rest of the population, much less requiring this by law, much less penalizing people of other beliefs.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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
?

Actually it is just you who do not understand the role of the judiciary.

Luckily the Supreme Court does.

See previous message Skylar C_Clayton_Jones Agit8r about understanding the First Amendment
and not abusing Govt to establish nationalized beliefs, religious or faith-based issues for the rest of the population, much less requiring this by law, much less penalizing people of other beliefs.

The First Amendment had nothing to do with the Obergefell ruling, it concerned solely the 14th Amendment.

 

[emilynghiem]

Here in WA it was passed by a popular referendum. Why should other states interfere with the obligation of contracts made here?

Hi Agit8r
Because that's the SAME argument as states that passed BANS prohibiting gay marriage
and claiming it was democratically passed. It still violates religious freedom of those who believe
in supporting the practice of gay marriage.

The same arguments you use to defend your beliefs as being passed by democratic process
are the arguments used to defend the BANS AGAINST gay marriage.

So you deadlock. Both sides are right in defending THEIR beliefs,
both sides are wrong if they impose their beliefs on people of the opposite camp using Govt to do so.

The key to Constitutional equality and Govt neutrality/equal protection of people of all beliefs
is to recognize that all beliefs are equally the right of those people to exercise.

Once you recognize equality, then you do not accept any laws biased one way over the other.
That would be discriminating against the other sides' beliefs.

The proper argument to be fully and equally Constitutionally protective and inclusive of both sides' beliefs
about marriage would be to require the people and states to keep marriage private UNLESS a law can be written and passed by consensus/consent of the people in that state. If people demand 100% consensus, or 3/4 vote,
or whatever, they can decide what process or threshold to use to decide agreement. I would recommend either 100% consensus, or else keep marriage private and out of the state, to avoid imposing a faith-based bias
in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments.

So Agit8r I don't disagree with your point, I'm just pointing out that to be fair,
you'd have to recognize the bans that were passed that way, too!

Not me. As a Constitutionalist I recognize both sides have their own beliefs and values that need to be protected for them, so I argue to either separate (such as by party) and completely administrate and fund separate benefits that recognize criteria the respective groups and members BELIEVE in and which represent them; and/or any policies that all the public AGREES on can be passed and enforced as public law. But no beliefs that are religious, faith based, or personal whether secular political or religious in terms, without full consent of the public. Like with references to God, if everyone AGREED to let God be stated on money, or let Crosses stand on memorials, or let prayers or nativity scenes and Christmas symbols be shared on public property, this does not have to be banned on principle; people can AGREE to permit such expressions; but if people DON'T agree to prayer or beliefs taught in schools, or don't believe in funding abortions or the death penalty, there should be a way to separate that from public policy where it doesn't impose on people of opposing beliefs. That's the First Amendment and also the Fourteenth. if this were exercised with beliefs about gay marriage and traditional marriage, then there would be no conflict with trying to impose EITHER ONE through the state or federal govt.

By recognizing and respecting all beliefs equally, all would be kept OUT of govt and decided by the people directly among themselves. Not forced on people by going through legislatures or courts trying to suppress the dissenting voices so that the other side dominates and forces their views on everyone else. Sorry, don't agree.

 

[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
?

Actually it is just you who do not understand the role of the judiciary.

Luckily the Supreme Court does.

See previous message Skylar C_Clayton_Jones Agit8r about understanding the First Amendment
and not abusing Govt to establish nationalized beliefs, religious or faith-based issues for the rest of the population, much less requiring this by law, much less penalizing people of other beliefs.

The First Amendment had nothing to do with the Obergefell ruling, it concerned solely the 14th Amendment.

Hi C_Clayton_Jones
As per your comment that you don't even believe my views apply to the real world
(while many conservatives live in the world where natural rights come from God/Nature
and not from Govt, and believe it is the Liberals who don't understand human nature and the real world)
EVERY political decision involves the First Amendment because people, like you and me, are Projecting our BELIEFS which BIAS our opinions and perceptions.

The Judges and legislators are also either Limited or Biased by their BELIEFS.

Examples:

A. As above, if people BELIEVE rights are already inherent and come from human nature/God
and don't depend on Govt to establish them by imposing ON the people, but rather people affirm
and agree on rights and freedoms and use the Democratic system to establish that AGREEMENT
like drawing up contracts that reflect what people ALREADY AGREE on and BELIEVE in.

This is a REFLECTION of public consent.
NOT an imposition of policy ON the people with or without consent.

This BELIEF affects people's relationship with govt and the useage of the political, legal and legislative process.

Whereas people who believe in depending on Govt to establish political rights, freedoms and laws
will fight to legislate more on the collective level using Govt
while the other group fights to liberate and to do more by individual free choice and to minimalize Govt.

So people's BELIEFS bias everything they think, say, do, propose, endorse, oppose, execute, fund, vote for or veto, write up or implement politically.

B. Another Example C_Clayton_Jones
if people believe consensus is possible
or people do not,
this affects the standard of consent one will seek in making decisions.

the Greens seek a consensus based inclusive process where objections are taken and resolved
BEFORE the final decision is made cooperatively as a group.

If you don't believe this is possible, if you believe the only way to defend your rights
against the opposition is to beat them politically, this AFFECTS what laws you will seek to pass,
what you will fund, which candidates you will endorse for office.

Political Beliefs affect that also.

C. If you believe in Due Process before punishing or rejecting someone or something.

For example, many people assume
1. spiritual healing is the same as false faith healing
healing homosexuality is the same as fraudulent abusive conversion therapy

so people seek to negate, attack, and deny knowledge and access to helpful therapy
WITHOUT going through the proper DUE PROCESS of distinguishing WHICH parties/practices
are guilty of the fraud or abuses. Instead, ALL groups and methods are ASSUMED to be guilty
of fraud/abuse by ASSOCIATION.

2. similar to assuming all gays are unnatural, sick and enabling pedophiles to abuse others.

Where is the due process to prove which people are spreading sickness and which are
natural and not imposing some agenda, denial, or abusive relations on others?

3. or gun rights. if the violent crimes of one person causes someone
to pass laws depriving even LAW ABIDING citizens of rights, where is the due process
to prove those people were going to abuse their rights and freedoms and needed the same
restrictions as a criminal does?

4. or health care mandates
If someone chooses not to buy insurance yet, where is the due process to prove they
were going to push the costs on the public instead of paying another way?
If the freedom to buy and consume drugs is being pushed for legalization and not declared a crime
to be punished, why punish the free choice of paying for health care other ways besides insurance?

Where is the due process to prove someone did criminal actions or had criminal intent
BEFORE depriving law-abiding citizens of freedom to pay and provide health care OTHER WAYS
BESIDES INSURANCE.

C_Clayton_Jones I am guess you understand "due process" in terms of not punishing and depriving ALL Muslims of equal rights and religious freedoms just because of the Jihadists who need more policing.
You understand that before Muslims are deprived of liberty, there must be due process to prove
THOSE MUSLIMS committed a crime and lost their privileges of freedom when duly convicted of breaking laws.

And you understand "due process" in terms of not accusing and punishing/persecuting
ALL gays, transgender, or others as "sick and spreading social perversion" when many
people are naturally that orientation, and do not deserve to be treated as sick criminals if that doesn't apply.
You understand that guilt by association is not justification to deprive/deny equal rights and protections to people.

What you don't seem to grasp is the same way YOU have beliefs about govt,
and whether courts/congress can makes laws involving religious bias or faith based beliefs,
other people do, too.

This is not "outside the real world" C_Clayton_Jones
this is the REALITY for those people the same way your beliefs ARE your reality, it defines
how you relate to and live day to day. Same with people of Constitutional views that Govt
is limited and cannot just pass any law as long as there is majority rule, or court ruling,
that follows the letter of the law procedure. None of that can supercede the Bill of Rights
and religious freedom from establishment by Govt.

If you don't believe that is reality, you are leaving out people whose reality this is!

So if you are leaving out half the nation, how is that reality?
C_Clayton_Jones
To define reality only based on your beliefs and experiences?
While leaving out people you disagree with so much you don't even think it is real or applies?

How is that reality if it doesn't include all people's views.

Can you have a real number system if you only count the even numbers you use,
and leave out the odd numbers? Or only count the positive numbers and leave out the negative?

Wouldn't the real and complete set include ALL numbers in their proper context.

Can you see how you mimic the fundamentalist who says only the Bible counts
and no views that aren't in there, that's not reality to them. Fine but what about
people who define their reality using Buddhism or natural science. You don't have
to agree with any of that, to recognize that is necessary to communicate their reality.

I challenge you to look deeper into this.
And understand why Conservatives don't believe Liberals are looking at the same reality either!
If both groups cover different realms of experience, don't you think we need BOTH sets to cover
the collective reality and broader range spectrum of all views from left to right?

Can you really define what is reality, and cut out certain knowledge views or perceptions as not counting?
Wouldn't you be missing that part of reality?

 

[emilynghiem]

And another of Sil's meaningless predictions based on reams of pseudo-legal gibberish is again splattered on the windshield of reality.

I swear, you can almost chart the future by paying careful attention to Sil's predictions. And then anticipating the exact opposite.

Skylar you seem plenty capable of spelling out where you and I seem to be diverging or else talking past each other.

Why not do the same and try to figure out where Sil is coming from?

If you and I can pinpoint the areas where we agree/disagree, don't you think that might
help more of us connect with Sil and Stephanie? Maybe with your help to spell things out,
we could find points of agreement and also explain where and why we dissent/disagree.

If we had specific terms to focus on, maybe there wouldn't be random splatters on the windshield.
Maybe we could have an intelligent discourse, similar to how the Founding Fathers argued back
and forth in papers and letters.

Can we do the same here, with Silhouette Stephanie and other objectors to the liberal agenda pushed through govt.

Go through and pinpoint which terms/concepts/principles or procedures they feel were bypassed or violated
in order for laws to pass that are normally not considered Constitutional for federal govt to mandate or regulate.

Hash out the terms, and also the Constitutional principles cited,
so we agree both on concepts and in the language used to separate the problem from the solutions.

Want to take this further? I'd love to team up with you and work things out with others like Sil and Steph.
I think you are very reasonable, and could serve a much needed role in moderating between people
coming from the opposite beliefs about govt. After we resolve our points, why not check with others if these help them resolve the same or similar points of conflict? Could open doors and avenues for others to follow through.

 

[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
?

Actually it is just you who do not understand the role of the judiciary.

Luckily the Supreme Court does.

See previous message Skylar C_Clayton_Jones Agit8r about understanding the First Amendment
and not abusing Govt to establish nationalized beliefs, religious or faith-based issues for the rest of the population, much less requiring this by law, much less penalizing people of other beliefs.

The First Amendment had nothing to do with the Obergefell ruling, it concerned solely the 14th Amendment.

BTW had the Fourteenth Amendment been enforced CONSISTENTLY
then the people who believe in traditional marriage only, and don't believe in states endorsing gay
marriage as a choice of belief that cannot be required for the public to fund,
would ALSO have THEIR beliefs EQUALLY protected.

Thus, if the Court were neutral and unbiased, the ruling would be to throw out any bans
or any laws unless the two sides AGREE the laws are written to accommodate and represent
their beliefs equally, without imposing or denying either one.

Just like the First Amendment mention of religion and free exercise
is written to apply to Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, etc without specifically naming them or any

So perhaps the marriage laws should not mention any gender or orientation
but remain neutral as civil unions, contracts, civil marriage or partnerships whatever the sides
agree to call it that applies to everyone equally. And leave the rest out of state law they can't agree on.

THAT would be respecting the First Amendment EQUALLY for both beliefs
in keeping with Equal Protection of the Laws under the Fourteenth Amendment.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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
?

Actually it is just you who do not understand the role of the judiciary.

Luckily the Supreme Court does.

See previous message Skylar C_Clayton_Jones Agit8r about understanding the First Amendment
and not abusing Govt to establish nationalized beliefs, religious or faith-based issues for the rest of the population, much less requiring this by law, much less penalizing people of other beliefs.

The First Amendment had nothing to do with the Obergefell ruling, it concerned solely the 14th Amendment.

Hi C_Clayton_Jones
As per your comment that you don't even believe my views apply to the real world
(while many conservatives live in the world where natural rights come from God/Nature
and not from Govt, and believe it is the Liberals who don't understand human nature and the real world)
EVERY political decision involves the First Amendment because people, like you and me, are Projecting our BELIEFS which BIAS our opinions and perceptions.

The Judges and legislators are also either Limited or Biased by their BELIEFS.

Examples:

A. As above, if people BELIEVE rights are already inherent and come from human nature/God
and don't depend on Govt to establish them by imposing ON the people, but rather people affirm
and agree on rights and freedoms and use the Democratic system to establish that AGREEMENT
like drawing up contracts that reflect what people ALREADY AGREE on and BELIEVE in.

This is a REFLECTION of public consent.
NOT an imposition of policy ON the people with or without consent.

This BELIEF affects people's relationship with govt and the useage of the political, legal and legislative process.

Whereas people who believe in depending on Govt to establish political rights, freedoms and laws
will fight to legislate more on the collective level using Govt
while the other group fights to liberate and to do more by individual free choice and to minimalize Govt.

So people's BELIEFS bias everything they think, say, do, propose, endorse, oppose, execute, fund, vote for or veto, write up or implement politically.

B. Another Example C_Clayton_Jones
if people believe consensus is possible
or people do not,
this affects the standard of consent one will seek in making decisions.

the Greens seek a consensus based inclusive process where objections are taken and resolved
BEFORE the final decision is made cooperatively as a group.

If you don't believe this is possible, if you believe the only way to defend your rights
against the opposition is to beat them politically, this AFFECTS what laws you will seek to pass,
what you will fund, which candidates you will endorse for office.

Political Beliefs affect that also.

C. If you believe in Due Process before punishing or rejecting someone or something.

For example, many people assume
1. spiritual healing is the same as false faith healing
healing homosexuality is the same as fraudulent abusive conversion therapy

so people seek to negate, attack, and deny knowledge and access to helpful therapy
WITHOUT going through the proper DUE PROCESS of distinguishing WHICH parties/practices
are guilty of the fraud or abuses. Instead, ALL groups and methods are ASSUMED to be guilty
of fraud/abuse by ASSOCIATION.

2. similar to assuming all gays are unnatural, sick and enabling pedophiles to abuse others.

Where is the due process to prove which people are spreading sickness and which are
natural and not imposing some agenda, denial, or abusive relations on others?

3. or gun rights. if the violent crimes of one person causes someone
to pass laws depriving even LAW ABIDING citizens of rights, where is the due process
to prove those people were going to abuse their rights and freedoms and needed the same
restrictions as a criminal does?

4. or health care mandates
If someone chooses not to buy insurance yet, where is the due process to prove they
were going to push the costs on the public instead of paying another way?
If the freedom to buy and consume drugs is being pushed for legalization and not declared a crime
to be punished, why punish the free choice of paying for health care other ways besides insurance?

Where is the due process to prove someone did criminal actions or had criminal intent
BEFORE depriving law-abiding citizens of freedom to pay and provide health care OTHER WAYS
BESIDES INSURANCE.

C_Clayton_Jones I am guess you understand "due process" in terms of not punishing and depriving ALL Muslims of equal rights and religious freedoms just because of the Jihadists who need more policing.
You understand that before Muslims are deprived of liberty, there must be due process to prove
THOSE MUSLIMS committed a crime and lost their privileges of freedom when duly convicted of breaking laws.

And you understand "due process" in terms of not accusing and punishing/persecuting
ALL gays, transgender, or others as "sick and spreading social perversion" when many
people are naturally that orientation, and do not deserve to be treated as sick criminals if that doesn't apply.
You understand that guilt by association is not justification to deprive/deny equal rights and protections to people.

What you don't seem to grasp is the same way YOU have beliefs about govt,
and whether courts/congress can makes laws involving religious bias or faith based beliefs,
other people do, too.

This is not "outside the real world" C_Clayton_Jones
this is the REALITY for those people the same way your beliefs ARE your reality, it defines
how you relate to and live day to day. Same with people of Constitutional views that Govt
is limited and cannot just pass any law as long as there is majority rule, or court ruling,
that follows the letter of the law procedure. None of that can supercede the Bill of Rights
and religious freedom from establishment by Govt.

If you don't believe that is reality, you are leaving out people whose reality this is!

So if you are leaving out half the nation, how is that reality?
C_Clayton_Jones
To define reality only based on your beliefs and experiences?
While leaving out people you disagree with so much you don't even think it is real or applies?

How is that reality if it doesn't include all people's views.

Can you have a real number system if you only count the even numbers you use,
and leave out the odd numbers? Or only count the positive numbers and leave out the negative?

Wouldn't the real and complete set include ALL numbers in their proper context.

Can you see how you mimic the fundamentalist who says only the Bible counts
and no views that aren't in there, that's not reality to them. Fine but what about
people who define their reality using Buddhism or natural science. You don't have
to agree with any of that, to recognize that is necessary to communicate their reality.

I challenge you to look deeper into this.
And understand why Conservatives don't believe Liberals are looking at the same reality either!
If both groups cover different realms of experience, don't you think we need BOTH sets to cover
the collective reality and broader range spectrum of all views from left to right?

Can you really define what is reality, and cut out certain knowledge views or perceptions as not counting?
Wouldn't you be missing that part of reality?

Gay Americans are marrying in Kentucky and across America, in accordance with the Constitution and its case law, where the right of same-sex couples to enter into marriage contracts is recognized and safeguarded from attack by the 14th Amendment, having nothing whatsoever to do with the First Amendment, and in no way 'violating' the First Amendment rights of those hostile to the due process and equal protection rights of gay Americans.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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
?

Actually it is just you who do not understand the role of the judiciary.

Luckily the Supreme Court does.

See previous message Skylar C_Clayton_Jones Agit8r about understanding the First Amendment
and not abusing Govt to establish nationalized beliefs, religious or faith-based issues for the rest of the population, much less requiring this by law, much less penalizing people of other beliefs.

The First Amendment had nothing to do with the Obergefell ruling, it concerned solely the 14th Amendment.

BTW had the Fourteenth Amendment been enforced CONSISTENTLY
then the people who believe in traditional marriage only, and don't believe in states endorsing gay
marriage as a choice of belief that cannot be required for the public to fund,
would ALSO have THEIR beliefs EQUALLY protected.

Thus, if the Court were neutral and unbiased, the ruling would be to throw out any bans
or any laws unless the two sides AGREE the laws are written to accommodate and represent
their beliefs equally, without imposing or denying either one.

Just like the First Amendment mention of religion and free exercise
is written to apply to Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, etc without specifically naming them or any

So perhaps the marriage laws should not mention any gender or orientation
but remain neutral as civil unions, contracts, civil marriage or partnerships whatever the sides
agree to call it that applies to everyone equally. And leave the rest out of state law they can't agree on.

THAT would be respecting the First Amendment EQUALLY for both beliefs
in keeping with Equal Protection of the Laws under the Fourteenth Amendment.

The 14th Amendment exists solely in the context of its case law, as is the case with the rest of the Constitution, as determined by the Supreme Court:

“The Fourteenth Amendment requires a State to license a marriage between two people of the same sex.

The fundamental liberties protected by the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause extend to certain personal choices central to individual dignity and autonomy, including intimate choices defining personal identity and beliefs. See, e.g., Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U. S. 438, 453; Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U. S. 479, 484–486.

The right of same-sex couples to marry is also derived from the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection.

The Fourteenth Amendment requires States to recognize same sex marriages validly performed out of State. Since same-sex couples may now exercise the fundamental right to marry in all States, there is no lawful basis for a State to refuse to recognize a lawful same-sex marriage performed in another State on the ground of its same-sex character. Pp. 27–28

Finally, it must be emphasized that religions, and those who adhere to religious doctrines, may continue to advocate with utmost, sincere conviction that, by divine precepts, same-sex marriage should not be condoned.”

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf

 

[Politico]

Kentucky Clerks Refuse to Issue Gay Marriage Licenses

No they refused to issue any.

 

[Skylar]

(1)

What you call 'writing laws' is merely weighing those laws against the constitution. If those laws violate the constitution or abrogate rights, they're invalid. And frankly, should be.

Hi Skylar Thank you for replying in detailed explanation, so we can compare where we agree/disagree.
(1)A. YES what you say above I AGREE with about "striking DOWN" laws that are unconstitutional.
And I AGREE that the BAN on gay marriage is unconstitutional.
(2)B. what I was saying the Judiciary does NOT have the right to do is ESTABLISH the INTERPRETATION
that just because you strike down the BAN, then it ENDORSES and NECESSITATES implementation
of gay marriage through the state.

The courts found that same sex marriage bans are unconstitutional. And that as part of the 14th amendment the states are required to both recognize and issue marriage licenses to same sex couples. Why did the court come to these two conclusions?

Because these were the two questions is was asked to answer:

1)Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to license a
marriage between two people of the same sex?

2) Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to recognize a marriage
between two people of the same sex when their marriage was
lawfully licensed and performed out-of-state?

http://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/011615zr_f2q3.pdf

You are literally arguing that the court doesn't have the 'right' to rule on questions posed to it. You're quite simply wrong. The court has every authority to rule on questioned posed to it, especially when those questions directly involve the constitution.

And the courts answer was 1) Yes. 2) Yes.

Though Kennedy put it much more eloquently. Probably because he knew that history books, posters and stamps would probably going to include quotes from his ruling.

(A) Oh, and the States don't have rights. Making any reference to the states and their 'reserve rights' extra-constitutional. States have powers. People have rights. And only people. Read the 9th and 10th amendments respectively.

(2) (A) That's fine if you want to say States POWERS instead of STATES RIGHTS.
Some people equate RIGHTS with POWER, some people don't.
We are meaning the same or similar/close enough.

The term 'states rights' is pretty common vernacular. But the distinction between rights and powers is important. As rights trump powers. And only people have rights. The States have none.

And gay marriage bans enacted through the power of the states violated the rights of individuals under the 14th amendment. And State marriage laws are subject to constitutional guarantees.

If you want to use the term POWERS that's fine.

I'm using the terms the constitution uses. Please see the 9th and 10th amendment respectively. The former relates to rights, which the people hold exclusively. The 10th applies to powers which both government and the people hold.

And Rights trump Powers. That's one of the key tenets of a constitutional republic. That the power of the government is constrained by the rights of the people.

Which again I think we can agree on.

 

[martybegan]

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
?

Actually it is just you who do not understand the role of the judiciary.

Luckily the Supreme Court does.

See previous message Skylar C_Clayton_Jones Agit8r about understanding the First Amendment
and not abusing Govt to establish nationalized beliefs, religious or faith-based issues for the rest of the population, much less requiring this by law, much less penalizing people of other beliefs.

The First Amendment had nothing to do with the Obergefell ruling, it concerned solely the 14th Amendment.

Hi C_Clayton_Jones
As per your comment that you don't even believe my views apply to the real world
(while many conservatives live in the world where natural rights come from God/Nature
and not from Govt, and believe it is the Liberals who don't understand human nature and the real world)
EVERY political decision involves the First Amendment because people, like you and me, are Projecting our BELIEFS which BIAS our opinions and perceptions.

The Judges and legislators are also either Limited or Biased by their BELIEFS.

Examples:

A. As above, if people BELIEVE rights are already inherent and come from human nature/God
and don't depend on Govt to establish them by imposing ON the people, but rather people affirm
and agree on rights and freedoms and use the Democratic system to establish that AGREEMENT
like drawing up contracts that reflect what people ALREADY AGREE on and BELIEVE in.

This is a REFLECTION of public consent.
NOT an imposition of policy ON the people with or without consent.

This BELIEF affects people's relationship with govt and the useage of the political, legal and legislative process.

Whereas people who believe in depending on Govt to establish political rights, freedoms and laws
will fight to legislate more on the collective level using Govt
while the other group fights to liberate and to do more by individual free choice and to minimalize Govt.

So people's BELIEFS bias everything they think, say, do, propose, endorse, oppose, execute, fund, vote for or veto, write up or implement politically.

B. Another Example C_Clayton_Jones
if people believe consensus is possible
or people do not,
this affects the standard of consent one will seek in making decisions.

the Greens seek a consensus based inclusive process where objections are taken and resolved
BEFORE the final decision is made cooperatively as a group.

If you don't believe this is possible, if you believe the only way to defend your rights
against the opposition is to beat them politically, this AFFECTS what laws you will seek to pass,
what you will fund, which candidates you will endorse for office.

Political Beliefs affect that also.

C. If you believe in Due Process before punishing or rejecting someone or something.

For example, many people assume
1. spiritual healing is the same as false faith healing
healing homosexuality is the same as fraudulent abusive conversion therapy

so people seek to negate, attack, and deny knowledge and access to helpful therapy
WITHOUT going through the proper DUE PROCESS of distinguishing WHICH parties/practices
are guilty of the fraud or abuses. Instead, ALL groups and methods are ASSUMED to be guilty
of fraud/abuse by ASSOCIATION.

2. similar to assuming all gays are unnatural, sick and enabling pedophiles to abuse others.

Where is the due process to prove which people are spreading sickness and which are
natural and not imposing some agenda, denial, or abusive relations on others?

3. or gun rights. if the violent crimes of one person causes someone
to pass laws depriving even LAW ABIDING citizens of rights, where is the due process
to prove those people were going to abuse their rights and freedoms and needed the same
restrictions as a criminal does?

4. or health care mandates
If someone chooses not to buy insurance yet, where is the due process to prove they
were going to push the costs on the public instead of paying another way?
If the freedom to buy and consume drugs is being pushed for legalization and not declared a crime
to be punished, why punish the free choice of paying for health care other ways besides insurance?

Where is the due process to prove someone did criminal actions or had criminal intent
BEFORE depriving law-abiding citizens of freedom to pay and provide health care OTHER WAYS
BESIDES INSURANCE.

C_Clayton_Jones I am guess you understand "due process" in terms of not punishing and depriving ALL Muslims of equal rights and religious freedoms just because of the Jihadists who need more policing.
You understand that before Muslims are deprived of liberty, there must be due process to prove
THOSE MUSLIMS committed a crime and lost their privileges of freedom when duly convicted of breaking laws.

And you understand "due process" in terms of not accusing and punishing/persecuting
ALL gays, transgender, or others as "sick and spreading social perversion" when many
people are naturally that orientation, and do not deserve to be treated as sick criminals if that doesn't apply.
You understand that guilt by association is not justification to deprive/deny equal rights and protections to people.

What you don't seem to grasp is the same way YOU have beliefs about govt,
and whether courts/congress can makes laws involving religious bias or faith based beliefs,
other people do, too.

This is not "outside the real world" C_Clayton_Jones
this is the REALITY for those people the same way your beliefs ARE your reality, it defines
how you relate to and live day to day. Same with people of Constitutional views that Govt
is limited and cannot just pass any law as long as there is majority rule, or court ruling,
that follows the letter of the law procedure. None of that can supercede the Bill of Rights
and religious freedom from establishment by Govt.

If you don't believe that is reality, you are leaving out people whose reality this is!

So if you are leaving out half the nation, how is that reality?
C_Clayton_Jones
To define reality only based on your beliefs and experiences?
While leaving out people you disagree with so much you don't even think it is real or applies?

How is that reality if it doesn't include all people's views.

Can you have a real number system if you only count the even numbers you use,
and leave out the odd numbers? Or only count the positive numbers and leave out the negative?

Wouldn't the real and complete set include ALL numbers in their proper context.

Can you see how you mimic the fundamentalist who says only the Bible counts
and no views that aren't in there, that's not reality to them. Fine but what about
people who define their reality using Buddhism or natural science. You don't have
to agree with any of that, to recognize that is necessary to communicate their reality.

I challenge you to look deeper into this.
And understand why Conservatives don't believe Liberals are looking at the same reality either!
If both groups cover different realms of experience, don't you think we need BOTH sets to cover
the collective reality and broader range spectrum of all views from left to right?

Can you really define what is reality, and cut out certain knowledge views or perceptions as not counting?
Wouldn't you be missing that part of reality?

Gay Americans are marrying in Kentucky and across America, in accordance with the Constitution and its case law, where the right of same-sex couples to enter into marriage contracts is recognized and safeguarded from attack by the 14th Amendment, having nothing whatsoever to do with the First Amendment, and in no way 'violating' the First Amendment rights of those hostile to the due process and equal protection rights of gay Americans.

No, the attacks on first amendment rights come next.

 

[Skylar]

Actually it is just you who do not understand the role of the judiciary.

Luckily the Supreme Court does.

See previous message Skylar C_Clayton_Jones Agit8r about understanding the First Amendment
and not abusing Govt to establish nationalized beliefs, religious or faith-based issues for the rest of the population, much less requiring this by law, much less penalizing people of other beliefs.

The First Amendment had nothing to do with the Obergefell ruling, it concerned solely the 14th Amendment.

Hi C_Clayton_Jones
As per your comment that you don't even believe my views apply to the real world
(while many conservatives live in the world where natural rights come from God/Nature
and not from Govt, and believe it is the Liberals who don't understand human nature and the real world)
EVERY political decision involves the First Amendment because people, like you and me, are Projecting our BELIEFS which BIAS our opinions and perceptions.

The Judges and legislators are also either Limited or Biased by their BELIEFS.

Examples:

A. As above, if people BELIEVE rights are already inherent and come from human nature/God
and don't depend on Govt to establish them by imposing ON the people, but rather people affirm
and agree on rights and freedoms and use the Democratic system to establish that AGREEMENT
like drawing up contracts that reflect what people ALREADY AGREE on and BELIEVE in.

This is a REFLECTION of public consent.
NOT an imposition of policy ON the people with or without consent.

This BELIEF affects people's relationship with govt and the useage of the political, legal and legislative process.

Whereas people who believe in depending on Govt to establish political rights, freedoms and laws
will fight to legislate more on the collective level using Govt
while the other group fights to liberate and to do more by individual free choice and to minimalize Govt.

So people's BELIEFS bias everything they think, say, do, propose, endorse, oppose, execute, fund, vote for or veto, write up or implement politically.

B. Another Example C_Clayton_Jones
if people believe consensus is possible
or people do not,
this affects the standard of consent one will seek in making decisions.

the Greens seek a consensus based inclusive process where objections are taken and resolved
BEFORE the final decision is made cooperatively as a group.

If you don't believe this is possible, if you believe the only way to defend your rights
against the opposition is to beat them politically, this AFFECTS what laws you will seek to pass,
what you will fund, which candidates you will endorse for office.

Political Beliefs affect that also.

C. If you believe in Due Process before punishing or rejecting someone or something.

For example, many people assume
1. spiritual healing is the same as false faith healing
healing homosexuality is the same as fraudulent abusive conversion therapy

so people seek to negate, attack, and deny knowledge and access to helpful therapy
WITHOUT going through the proper DUE PROCESS of distinguishing WHICH parties/practices
are guilty of the fraud or abuses. Instead, ALL groups and methods are ASSUMED to be guilty
of fraud/abuse by ASSOCIATION.

2. similar to assuming all gays are unnatural, sick and enabling pedophiles to abuse others.

Where is the due process to prove which people are spreading sickness and which are
natural and not imposing some agenda, denial, or abusive relations on others?

3. or gun rights. if the violent crimes of one person causes someone
to pass laws depriving even LAW ABIDING citizens of rights, where is the due process
to prove those people were going to abuse their rights and freedoms and needed the same
restrictions as a criminal does?

4. or health care mandates
If someone chooses not to buy insurance yet, where is the due process to prove they
were going to push the costs on the public instead of paying another way?
If the freedom to buy and consume drugs is being pushed for legalization and not declared a crime
to be punished, why punish the free choice of paying for health care other ways besides insurance?

Where is the due process to prove someone did criminal actions or had criminal intent
BEFORE depriving law-abiding citizens of freedom to pay and provide health care OTHER WAYS
BESIDES INSURANCE.

C_Clayton_Jones I am guess you understand "due process" in terms of not punishing and depriving ALL Muslims of equal rights and religious freedoms just because of the Jihadists who need more policing.
You understand that before Muslims are deprived of liberty, there must be due process to prove
THOSE MUSLIMS committed a crime and lost their privileges of freedom when duly convicted of breaking laws.

And you understand "due process" in terms of not accusing and punishing/persecuting
ALL gays, transgender, or others as "sick and spreading social perversion" when many
people are naturally that orientation, and do not deserve to be treated as sick criminals if that doesn't apply.
You understand that guilt by association is not justification to deprive/deny equal rights and protections to people.

What you don't seem to grasp is the same way YOU have beliefs about govt,
and whether courts/congress can makes laws involving religious bias or faith based beliefs,
other people do, too.

This is not "outside the real world" C_Clayton_Jones
this is the REALITY for those people the same way your beliefs ARE your reality, it defines
how you relate to and live day to day. Same with people of Constitutional views that Govt
is limited and cannot just pass any law as long as there is majority rule, or court ruling,
that follows the letter of the law procedure. None of that can supercede the Bill of Rights
and religious freedom from establishment by Govt.

If you don't believe that is reality, you are leaving out people whose reality this is!

So if you are leaving out half the nation, how is that reality?
C_Clayton_Jones
To define reality only based on your beliefs and experiences?
While leaving out people you disagree with so much you don't even think it is real or applies?

How is that reality if it doesn't include all people's views.

Can you have a real number system if you only count the even numbers you use,
and leave out the odd numbers? Or only count the positive numbers and leave out the negative?

Wouldn't the real and complete set include ALL numbers in their proper context.

Can you see how you mimic the fundamentalist who says only the Bible counts
and no views that aren't in there, that's not reality to them. Fine but what about
people who define their reality using Buddhism or natural science. You don't have
to agree with any of that, to recognize that is necessary to communicate their reality.

I challenge you to look deeper into this.
And understand why Conservatives don't believe Liberals are looking at the same reality either!
If both groups cover different realms of experience, don't you think we need BOTH sets to cover
the collective reality and broader range spectrum of all views from left to right?

Can you really define what is reality, and cut out certain knowledge views or perceptions as not counting?
Wouldn't you be missing that part of reality?

Gay Americans are marrying in Kentucky and across America, in accordance with the Constitution and its case law, where the right of same-sex couples to enter into marriage contracts is recognized and safeguarded from attack by the 14th Amendment, having nothing whatsoever to do with the First Amendment, and in no way 'violating' the First Amendment rights of those hostile to the due process and equal protection rights of gay Americans.

No, the attacks on first amendment rights come next.

The courts have never found that State PA laws violate the 1st amendment. Not the USSC, not any federal court, not any state court.

You do. And you're not nearly enough.