Marriage Beliefs: Honesty, can't we ADMIT we have political differences in bias and beliefs???

[emilynghiem]

As arguments near Justice Ginsburg has already made up her mind on gay marriage

I find there are
1. people who believe in gay marriage
2. people who don't
3. people who don't believe in it but are willing to let other people have that through the state
4. people who believe in gay marriage, but not to the point of imposing it through the state when others don't believe in this

Why can't we admit there are DIFFERENT beliefs about this?

Is there any HONEST official in government willing to accept the REALITY that
everyone has a right to their beliefs, but GOVT CANNOT BE ABUSED to ESTABLISH any of these views
IN CONFLICT WITH OTHERS.

Because each person has equal right to their BELIEFS I agree with
A. Oklahoma's approach of removing marriage from the state and keeping it to the churches or private sector
B. Another state that neither made gay marriage banned or illegal, but didn't endorse it either.
C. Leaving it to the people of each state to find ways where both views can be equally accommodated.

But if the conflict can't be resolved per state, taking the same unresolved conflict of beliefs to federal govt
isn't going to solve the problem. Because both sides still have equal rights to their beliefs!

 

[emilynghiem]

Added notes for the Texas divide over this issue of gay marriage:

For Texas, I might even recommend a bipartisan agreement, such as

1. Either remove marriage from state institutions similarly to removing the mention of God to keep this private;
OR
agreeing that if marriage is going to be opened up to gays, without suing or stopping this expression of belief, then all parties agree to make it law NOT to sue to stop crosses, Bibles, prayers, mentions of God Jesus creation or religion in public schools or institutions; and only sue for cases where people are unlawfully being forced or abused religiously to FOLLOW something against their will, but not to FUND it,s since in the case of gay marriage, the public is being asked to recognize benefits for these unions.

If gay marriage is going to be mandatory, arguments can be made to add a mandatory condition that
ALL COUPLES go through spiritual healing to make sure these relations are healthy and natural and there is NO SEXUAL ABUSE or RELATIONSHIP ABUSE going on, no coercion or other domestic violence or addiction. So whatever complaints anyone has about gay couples should be equally checked for straight couples so there is no discrimination. If the issue is these marriages are not natural, then ALL unnatural relations should be checked as well, for both heterosexual or homosexual couples, and that would be equal.
And spiritual healing can be offered as a universal way to detect or correct any unnatural abuse.

If people don't believe spiritual healing is natural and can proven to work, and don't agree for that to be required, then neither can gay marriage be required of the public, by the faith-based belief it is natural either.

2. OR dividing the benefits and marriage process by party, so each set of taxpayers can fund the policy of their choice and not be forced to fund the other. I would also separate funding for the death penalty by party for the sake of taxpayers who object to funding capital punishment against their beliefs.

Since the conservative movement is pushing legislation to withhold any state resources from going to gay marriages, why not separate this by party so the people who want to fund them can still do so through their own administrative track.

Prolife and prochoice health care can also be separated by party, such as
* Conservatives working with Libertarian and Republican parties to set up health care based on free market, where insurance remains a voluntary option, but what might be required is spiritual healing to make sure no extra expenses are paid for drug addictions, criminal illness, and other mental or physical illness that could be cured for free.
* Liberals and universal care/singlepayer supporters working with the Greens and Democrats to set up a network where members can volunteer to participate under the govt mandates regulating payments and services through a centralized system. The federal exchanges can be used to register convicts and inmate, or also immigrant applicants who owe restitution for any violations of law; so that all people are held accountable for costs incurred to the public.
* a system of microlending to cover costs, so this isn't forced on taxpayers, but is worked out by consent of the people paying for services and people incurring them. If the private investors who lend through the Federal Reserve get interest paid on the money they invest in govt, why not let all citizens be rewarded for investing as loans to govt instead of forced taxation taken from our salaries and income from labor?

 

[Luddly Neddite]

I believe in equality.

 

[emilynghiem]

I believe in equality.

Can equality be established in more than one way:
1. letting all citizens have civil unions, custody and estate contracts through the state
while letting marriages be kept in private so people are free to exercise their beliefs at will without political interference
2. or if people AGREE to have marriage through the state open to all, including homosexual couples, also AGREEING to allow free expressions of Christmas, God and Jesus, prayers and Bibles, crosses and Nativity scenes, creation taught in schools and allowed in public institutions as references (as long as these are NOT forced on people in any abusive way, and the same with not forcing homosexuality on people but allowing people of these beliefs to express them freely as what Christians ask for Christianity).

If there is equality for homosexuality and gay marriage included in public policy,
is there equality for Christianity and the Christmas culture included in public policy?

Are you for equality for everyone's beliefs, or just your own Luddly Neddite

 

[jwoodie]

5. Let each State decide. This is not a U.S. Constitutional issue.

 

[emilynghiem]

5. Let each State decide. This is not a U.S. Constitutional issue.

Because the conflict involves BELIEFS, protected under the First and Fourteenth Amendments,
the Constitutional question should be concerning the equal protection of equal beliefs or creeds,
and not arguing to defend the CONTENT of any such beliefs by favoring one over the other.

 

[Skylar]

As arguments near Justice Ginsburg has already made up her mind on gay marriage

I find there are
1. people who believe in gay marriage
2. people who don't
3. people who don't believe in it but are willing to let other people have that through the state
4. people who believe in gay marriage, but not to the point of imposing it through the state when others don't believe in this

Why can't we admit there are DIFFERENT beliefs about this?

Is there any HONEST official in government willing to accept the REALITY that
everyone has a right to their beliefs, but GOVT CANNOT BE ABUSED to ESTABLISH any of these views
IN CONFLICT WITH OTHERS.

Depends on what you mean by 'establish any of those views'. People can obviously disagree. And not everyone has to agree with the law. But the lack of universal agreement on a law doesn't invalidate that law. Same with a court ruling.

You can believe whatever you want. Laws regulate actions.

 

[Moonglow]

Are the churches going to test for diseases when application for marriage license is submitted?

 

[BluesLegend]

The left is intolerant of people who refuse to subscribe to their view of the world. That's how you end up with a liberal run government agency awarding a $135,000 judgment to a lesbian couple because a baker refused to bake them a freaking cake, that is an utterly ridiculous amount. It was intentionally meant to punish and set an example, to destroy the baker's business and the baker personally. That's your so called liberal tolerance for you. I think these liberal scum know where they can go and what they can do when they get there.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

5. Let each State decide. This is not a U.S. Constitutional issue.

NO.

It is not a state issue. You big government RWs just want more and more laws but the govt has no place in our private lives.

If YOU are a consenting adult and you want to marry a consenting adult, its is none of my business.

Period.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

The left is intolerant of people who refuse to subscribe to their view of the world. That's how you end up with a liberal run government agency awarding a $135,000 judgment to a lesbian couple because a baker refused to bake them a freaking cake, that is an utterly ridiculous amount. It was intentionally meant to punish and set an example, to destroy the baker's business and the baker personally. That's your so called liberal tolerance for you. I think these liberal scum know where they can go and what they can do when they get there.

The left is intolerant of Big Government RW fundies trashing the Constitution.

You want to use religion to rule government. Religion belongs in churches, not in government.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

I believe in equality.

Can equality be established in more than one way:
1. letting all citizens have civil unions, custody and estate contracts through the state
while letting marriages be kept in private so people are free to exercise their beliefs at will without political interference
2. or if people AGREE to have marriage through the state open to all, including homosexual couples, also AGREEING to allow free expressions of Christmas, God and Jesus, prayers and Bibles, crosses and Nativity scenes, creation taught in schools and allowed in public institutions as references (as long as these are NOT forced on people in any abusive way, and the same with not forcing homosexuality on people but allowing people of these beliefs to express them freely as what Christians ask for Christianity).

If there is equality for homosexuality and gay marriage included in public policy,
is there equality for Christianity and the Christmas culture included in public policy?

Are you for equality for everyone's beliefs, or just your own Luddly Neddite

I have never seen a sloppier mind than yours, Emily. You start out with one subject and next thing we know, you've wandered off into the mythical war on xmas.

No one is stopping you from celebrating what ever holiday you want to celebrate. But no, you don't get to force others to celebrate it by putting silly ass nativitiy crap or the christian version of the 10 commandments on the courthouse lawn.

How soon before you turn this into yet another ACA rant?

Choose a subject. Just one.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

As arguments near Justice Ginsburg has already made up her mind on gay marriage

I find there are
1. people who believe in gay marriage
2. people who don't
3. people who don't believe in it but are willing to let other people have that through the state
4. people who believe in gay marriage, but not to the point of imposing it through the state when others don't believe in this

Why can't we admit there are DIFFERENT beliefs about this?

Is there any HONEST official in government willing to accept the REALITY that
everyone has a right to their beliefs, but GOVT CANNOT BE ABUSED to ESTABLISH any of these views
IN CONFLICT WITH OTHERS.

Depends on what you mean by 'establish any of those views'. People can obviously disagree. And not everyone has to agree with the law. But the lack of universal agreement on a law doesn't invalidate that law. Same with a court ruling.

You can believe whatever you want. Laws regulate actions.

^^^^^
THAT!
Exactly right.

Believe as you wish but my beliefs should not control your actions.

 

[BluesLegend]

The left is intolerant of people who refuse to subscribe to their view of the world. That's how you end up with a liberal run government agency awarding a $135,000 judgment to a lesbian couple because a baker refused to bake them a freaking cake, that is an utterly ridiculous amount. It was intentionally meant to punish and set an example, to destroy the baker's business and the baker personally. That's your so called liberal tolerance for you. I think these liberal scum know where they can go and what they can do when they get there.

The left is intolerant of Big Government RW fundies trashing the Constitution.

You want to use religion to rule government. Religion belongs in churches, not in government.

The left can go to hell and take their slimy disgusting practices with them.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

The left is intolerant of people who refuse to subscribe to their view of the world. That's how you end up with a liberal run government agency awarding a $135,000 judgment to a lesbian couple because a baker refused to bake them a freaking cake, that is an utterly ridiculous amount. It was intentionally meant to punish and set an example, to destroy the baker's business and the baker personally. That's your so called liberal tolerance for you. I think these liberal scum know where they can go and what they can do when they get there.

The left is intolerant of Big Government RW fundies trashing the Constitution.

You want to use religion to rule government. Religion belongs in churches, not in government.

The left can go to hell and take their slimy disgusting practices with them.

Sorry but the US Constitution is here to stay.

Deal with it.

 

[martybegan]

I believe in equality.

Unless you disagree with them, then BAKE THAT DAMN CAKE

 

[martybegan]

5. Let each State decide. This is not a U.S. Constitutional issue.

NO.

It is not a state issue. You big government RWs just want more and more laws but the govt has no place in our private lives.

If YOU are a consenting adult and you want to marry a consenting adult, its is none of my business.

Period.

So you are A-OK with incest? good to know.

 

[BluesLegend]

The left is intolerant of people who refuse to subscribe to their view of the world. That's how you end up with a liberal run government agency awarding a $135,000 judgment to a lesbian couple because a baker refused to bake them a freaking cake, that is an utterly ridiculous amount. It was intentionally meant to punish and set an example, to destroy the baker's business and the baker personally. That's your so called liberal tolerance for you. I think these liberal scum know where they can go and what they can do when they get there.

The left is intolerant of Big Government RW fundies trashing the Constitution.

You want to use religion to rule government. Religion belongs in churches, not in government.

The left can go to hell and take their slimy disgusting practices with them.

Sorry but the US Constitution is here to stay.

Deal with it.

Ahahaha I hope the freaks keep pushing I know how that will end.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Believe as you wish. The law however, is an entirely different matter and there's no reason that it need take your beliefs into account.

 

[danielpalos]

As arguments near Justice Ginsburg has already made up her mind on gay marriage

I find there are
1. people who believe in gay marriage
2. people who don't
3. people who don't believe in it but are willing to let other people have that through the state
4. people who believe in gay marriage, but not to the point of imposing it through the state when others don't believe in this

Why can't we admit there are DIFFERENT beliefs about this?

Is there any HONEST official in government willing to accept the REALITY that
everyone has a right to their beliefs, but GOVT CANNOT BE ABUSED to ESTABLISH any of these views
IN CONFLICT WITH OTHERS.

Because each person has equal right to their BELIEFS I agree with
A. Oklahoma's approach of removing marriage from the state and keeping it to the churches or private sector
B. Another state that neither made gay marriage banned or illegal, but didn't endorse it either.
C. Leaving it to the people of each state to find ways where both views can be equally accommodated.

But if the conflict can't be resolved per state, taking the same unresolved conflict of beliefs to federal govt
isn't going to solve the problem. Because both sides still have equal rights to their beliefs!

Okies are ok in my book.