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

[Edgetho]

You posted without swearing

I didn't know you had it in you.

Actually, she had it in her......

 

[kaz]

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).]

Why do you insist on equating 'gay marriage' with 'nativity scenes"?

How did you possibly not get that?

Her point is that you want tolerance towards gays, do you actually believe in all tolerance? Such as Christian nativity scenes? Or is your tolerance selective?

 

[HappyJoy]

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).]

Why do you insist on equating 'gay marriage' with 'nativity scenes"?

How did you possibly not get that?

Her point is that you want tolerance towards gays, do you actually believe in all tolerance? Such as Christian nativity scenes? Or is your tolerance selective?

Free expressions of religion are already legal.

 

[emilynghiem]

Voting and a judiciary that acts as a stop gap against the tyranny of the majority.

Not all beliefs are equally compatible with the will of the electorate or the constitution. Those that are are enforced. Those that aren't are discarded. Says who? Says us. Either directly or through our representatives.

1. Well what if "us" is divided by BELIEF: such as right to life wanting to impose that through govt instead of free choice,
or right to health care wanting to impose that through govt instead of free choice.

Wouldn't the more inclusive policy that ALLOWS FREE CHOICE of both ways be the moire universal?
The same way we allow PROCHOICE to be the law because it still allows people to practice prolife and prevent abortion,
why can't FREE MARKET be the law because it still allows people the choice to set up their own mandated programs
if they want to mandate insurance for their members under that track.

And as for marriage, wouldn't civil unions and secular contracts be the most inclusive means of covering all cases through the states, and allowing the equal and free exercise of people who believe in either gay marriage, traditional or both on a private level without imposing on anyone's beliefs on a state level.

Wouldn't the public level be the most neutral that allows all other beliefs to be practiced in private, and not favor one over others.

2. As for personal beliefs that are a choice, such as religion and now beliefs about marriage, health care, etc.
These are NEVER the jurisdiction of federal gov to dictate.

The problem we have is certain beliefs are about govt itself, thus impossible to "separate belief,
s from govt."
Since they cannot be separated, then I am saying to either AGREE how to write the laws where they accommodate
BOTH beliefs; or else separate by party where they can be implemented on a national level similar to federal, but
through separately funded and administrated private programs so nobody's beliefs are imposed on others of the other group.

2.

Sure it is. As 'contesting' something doesn't mean what they are claiming is accurate. You're accepting any belief as factually valid. And the basis of changing our laws. You've imagined mere belief of any individual on any topic to be the supreme arbiter of all law and constitutionality.

That's simply not the case. Nor ever has been. Not in our era, not in the era of the founders.

1. I was saying they have the right to petition and to defend their beliefs and representation.
I agree this should NOT be abused or "assumed" to mean any belief is endorsed by law!
That's not what I am implying at all.

In fact, if all groups, dissenters and their objections are heard, this PREVENTS any one belief from being imposed
because the other objections/dissension will be taken into account to check and balance that.
So if democratic processes are facilitated correctly, these conflicts are resolved. and abuses are prevented.

2. However I will still hold that NOBODY should be required to prove their personal beliefs in order to be protected.
You should not have to PROVE what you believe about gay marriage or traditional marriage in order to DEFEND
your right to practice that in private. It's only when this was pushed in public, that both sides started trying to discredit or demean the other, when they are EQUALLY FAITH BASED, and should be treated as private without having to justify why someone believes in that or not.

The first amendment guarantees the right to petition the government for redress. It doesn't guarantee that any charge, belief or allegation will be accepted and any resolution demanded will be provided. You're equating the government rejecting an allegation as invalid as being the same as the government refusing to hear a petition.

They aren't the same thing. And its only the latter that is constitutionally valid. Which is why your argument doesn't work.

This is a major problem with govt.
This is too easily abused to censor petitions, so it's like the saying justice delayed is justice denied.

By my First Amendment beliefs in isonomy, I hold that people are the govt, so we share responsibility for
redressing our own grievances. This ensures equal protection of the laws to empower all people on that level.

I may not be able to enforce this interpretation except where people accept equal responsibility for govt.

But I can argue that FAILING TO REDRESS GRIEVANCES VIOLATES THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.

Because it would allow one party protection of the laws, while the other is denied protections while they petition!

So if corporate abuse of govt resources and authority destroys a historic district, and gets away with it while the residents are still "trying to petition" to defend their historic churches destroyed and
campus plans censored by abuse of taxpayer money,
then that is STILL VIOLATING THEIR FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT RIGHTS to equal protection of the laws.

They can petition "after the fact" or try to "prove in advance that harm would be caused" but this requires
LEGAL RESOURCES on the same level of the influence that corporate interests have with govt.

So I am arguing it is NOT enough just to say someone has the right to petition.
That is NOT ENOUGH to protect people equally under law where corporate developers have more legal and political influence than individuals without equal legal resources to defend their consent and interests.

That is why I push for CONSENT OF THE GOVERNED to be the standard of enforcing law,
so that the "due process" is not hijacked, skewed, abused, manipulated, obstructed or censored
by people who are deliberately seeking to violate the consent of others.

Because this level of law enforcement, by its nature, must be consented to in order to be consistent with its
own arguments, it requires public education so people can make the choice of consent as the standard.
Otherwise, the system as is can always be abused to oppress others by skewing due process to violate equal
rights and consent of others. If consent is the standard, then all grievances and complaints should be addressed
and resolved to prevent any such abuses. That is the standard I find more consistent, which I recommend to others.

ethics-commission.net

 

[guno]

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!

Beliefs don't matter when it is someone else's marriage, If a person feels strongly about it they shouldn't do it themselves but should keep their religion and beliefs out of someone else s business

 

[Syriusly]

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).]

Why do you insist on equating 'gay marriage' with 'nativity scenes"?

How did you possibly not get that?

Her point is that you want tolerance towards gays, do you actually believe in all tolerance? Such as Christian nativity scenes? Or is your tolerance selective?

I am fine with Christian nativity scenes- as long as they are not on public property.

Frankly I think no Christian should want them on public property because if you allow any group to do so- you open the door for the gay nativity scene and the satanic nativity scene and the KKK nativity scene.

Yes- I believe in 'tolerence'- that the government should not be telling gays or straights, Christians or Atheists, how they should believe.

I think if the government is in the business of marrying people then they should marry people whether they are Christians or Jews, straight or gay.

And again- nativity scenes- and all government endorsed displays of religious content have nothing to do with marriage equality for same gender couples.

 

[Syriusly]

You posted without swearing

I didn't know you had it in you.

Actually, she had it in her......

Guess she didn't notice.......

 

[emilynghiem]

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).]

Why do you insist on equating 'gay marriage' with 'nativity scenes"?

How did you possibly not get that?

Her point is that you want tolerance towards gays, do you actually believe in all tolerance? Such as Christian nativity scenes? Or is your tolerance selective?

Free expressions of religion are already legal.

HappyJoy
????

1. What about the case of removing crosses from memorials, such as one case where the Court fined the defense thousands of dollars per day that it wasn't removed. And the lawyers seeking removal even BLOCKED the sale of the property to a private group seeking to preserve the cross, since they argued that the govt was still favoring religion by selling the property to that group?

Isn't a fine as a penalty for NOT removing a cross making
that display a violation disobeying court order and thus violating law?

There are multiple cases like this. Sorry if I run them together but I will try to add links to specific cases: Mount Soledad cross controversy - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

2. What about the case of a religious freedom group that threatened to sue to remove a cross design off a memorial to a teacher, because it was on public school property?

Atheist group threatens suit over angels on memorial to beloved teacher Fox News

Isn't this saying it is against the law to have a cross and angels on public property.
Or is it bullying and harassment if no lawsuit actually occurred?

 

[g5000]

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

If equal protection of the laws is not a constitutional issue, then neither is the right to bear arms and we should let the states decide about guns.

See how that works?

 

[kaz]

I am fine with Christian nativity scenes- as long as they are not on public property

So in a Southern town with 95% Christians they should be prohibited from putting a nativity scene in the town square?

 

[kaz]

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

If equal protection of the laws is not a constitutional issue, then neither is the right to bear arms and we should let the states decide about guns.

See how that works?

Gays have equal protection. Being black changed who you could marry. Being gay doesn't

 

[Syriusly]

I am fine with Christian nativity scenes- as long as they are not on public property

So in a Southern town with 95% Christians they should be prohibited from putting a nativity scene in the town square?

Unless they want to open up the town square to any and all comers, for any displays, religious or not.

I suspect that they wouldn't want the "Gay Nativity" but without discriminating on the basis of religion, how would they deny it if they allow any other nativity?

 

[Syriusly]

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

If equal protection of the laws is not a constitutional issue, then neither is the right to bear arms and we should let the states decide about guns.

See how that works?

Gays have equal protection. Being black changed who you could marry. Being gay doesn't

Well the courts have generally said that argument is crap- and that is what the Supreme Court will be considering starting tomorrow- should be fun to watch.

 

[emilynghiem]

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).]

Why do you insist on equating 'gay marriage' with 'nativity scenes"?

How did you possibly not get that?

Her point is that you want tolerance towards gays, do you actually believe in all tolerance? Such as Christian nativity scenes? Or is your tolerance selective?

I am fine with Christian nativity scenes- as long as they are not on public property.

Frankly I think no Christian should want them on public property because if you allow any group to do so- you open the door for the gay nativity scene and the satanic nativity scene and the KKK nativity scene.

Yes- I believe in 'tolerence'- that the government should not be telling gays or straights, Christians or Atheists, how they should believe.

I think if the government is in the business of marrying people then they should marry people whether they are Christians or Jews, straight or gay.

And again- nativity scenes- and all government endorsed displays of religious content have nothing to do with marriage equality for same gender couples.

??? Syriusly
Are you saying that allowing free speech on the internet
should be "banned in all cases" because it opens the door to abusing internet for child porn, fraud, etc?

Shouldn't just the cases of abuse be banned and not all expressions?

 

[kaz]

I am fine with Christian nativity scenes- as long as they are not on public property

So in a Southern town with 95% Christians they should be prohibited from putting a nativity scene in the town square?

Unless they want to open up the town square to any and all comers, for any displays, religious or not.

I suspect that they wouldn't want the "Gay Nativity" but without discriminating on the basis of religion, how would they deny it if they allow any other nativity?

Why would they have to do that?

 

[guno]

I am fine with Christian nativity scenes- as long as they are not on public property

So in a Southern town with 95% Christians they should be prohibited from putting a nativity scene in the town square?

Yes the establishment clause applys

 

[emilynghiem]

I am fine with Christian nativity scenes- as long as they are not on public property

So in a Southern town with 95% Christians they should be prohibited from putting a nativity scene in the town square?

Unless they want to open up the town square to any and all comers, for any displays, religious or not.

I suspect that they wouldn't want the "Gay Nativity" but without discriminating on the basis of religion, how would they deny it if they allow any other nativity?

Sure, Syriusly, in both cases let the residents decide democratically and by consensus.

If there happens to be a gay church in the area, why not allow that church to display a gay scene?
They could agree to localize this to each church or neighborhood having the display those members agree with,
so it is fair.
Why not?

Why preclude all displays because you don't trust people to work things out themselves in a reasonable fashion.
How can they ever learn if you ban them from even having these options available?

 

[emilynghiem]

I am fine with Christian nativity scenes- as long as they are not on public property

So in a Southern town with 95% Christians they should be prohibited from putting a nativity scene in the town square?

Yes the establishment clause applys

Ok guno so why doesn't the establishment clause apply
when the Democrats who believe in right to health care through federal govt
pass a law that exempts them from taxes while penalizing people who believe in free market;
even though the people who believe in free market vocally and visibly objected in defense of their beliefs?

Why weren't those beliefs protected equally from establishment and discrimination by creed?

 

[kaz]

I am fine with Christian nativity scenes- as long as they are not on public property

So in a Southern town with 95% Christians they should be prohibited from putting a nativity scene in the town square?

Yes the establishment clause applys

So a local town putting up a nativity scene is Congress establishing a region or prohibiting free expression of religion?

Emily nailed you with this one. You have this ridiculously contorted standard for this where anything any level of government, even local, does involving religion in any possible way is Unconstitutional, you kill it all.

Then with gay marriage where being gay doesn't change who you can marry, you want the courts to say well that's not fair, let's override that because we can and save leftists the trouble of convincing anyone

Victory to Emily, QED

 

[Cecilie1200]

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

He's for the equality of everyone being forced to agree with him.