Neighbor Please: LAST word on Marriage laws, Govt, and the First Amendment

[emilynghiem]

Arkansas Will Hear Bill To Dismantle Marriage Equality On Valentine's Day | The Huffington Post

Oh Jeez, Neighbor Pleeeez!
================================
"Republican Senator Jason Rapert’s Senate Joint Resolution 7, filed last week, says “Nothing in this Constitution or in the constitution or laws of any state may define or be construed to define marriage except as the 2 union of one man and one woman, and no other union shall be recognized with 3 legal incidents thereof within the United States or any place subject to 4 their jurisdiction.”

A hearing is set for Tuesday, according to Pink News, to consider the motion.

Thirty-four states need to call for the constitutional convention, and 38 states are required for the amendment to be added to the Constitution."
=======================================

What part of the First Amendment did you NOT understand
about Govt NOT ESTABLISHING
(nor Prohibiting) the Free Exercise of Religion?

Seems Clear and Common Sense to me
that Govt CANNOT establish Marriage laws
BIASED one way or another. Or else the people
whose beliefs are infringed upon or discriminated
against are going to complain by the First Amendment,
and the Fourteenth by not protecting their beliefs equally.

If laws are NEUTRAL (such as civil unions or contracts that neither
establish nor deny same sex unions because they don't state any
references to gender or social relationships to begin with),
those MIGHT pass Constitutional standards.

(Example: Look how the Second Amendment is worded, where people are able to interpret it two totally opposing ways where both beliefs are still accommodated. Changing that law to solidify one interpretation over the other would infringe on the beliefs of the opposing side; but keeping it as is allows both sides to defend their own beliefs about what the law means or should mean.)

If people of a state AGREE to marriage laws biased one way or another,
then clearly nobody is going to complain of religious discrimination either way.

It's when the laws are changed or imposed WITHOUT CONSENT of the people, when it's FORCED against the will and beliefs of individuals affected; then of course those people are going to protest that infringement as unconstitutional.

What part of First Amendment religious freedom and the "non" establishment
clause do people NOT understand?

Is it because it applies BOTH WAYS that it is causing such problems?
That it isn't a matter of pushing one side over the other, but NEITHER side's beliefs can be imposed at the expense of the others. Is THAT what people don't get? that BOTH sides are right that NEITHER should be wronged by govt.

If I were a judge on any level of court process touching this matter of
marriage laws and same sex accommodations, my vote and opinion
would be on the side of KICKING THE ISSUE BACK TO THE PEOPLE
directly involved in each conflict, and QUIT trying to drag govt into it to
mandate a decision for THOSE INDIVIDUALS who need to work this
out themselves. The govt cannot decide or fix this for anyone else.

This is as contradictory as asking gov to step in and decide if
* communions should be all inclusive or if a church is allowed to
ban some people and only provide communion to certain members
meeting certain terms and agreements
* baptisms should be full water immersion or if sprinkling is endorsed;
if infant baptisms are recognized or only adult baptisms, etc.
* prayers should be endorsed in Christ name only, or if nondenominational
prayers can be endorsed and recognized by Govt.

How about keeping marriage, prayers, baptisms and all other rituals
out of govt all together?

Either AGREE on a neutral policy of civil contracts, or get it all out
of govt. Do we have to create separate political party administrations
to handle social benefits and marriage? And health care policies?

If the church had to split between Protestant and Catholics,
instead of trying to force everyone under the same church administration policies:
Do we need to split "social programs" under two separate party denominations
to guarantee unabridged free exercise of religion for people of opposing beliefs?

 

[Damaged Eagle]

The courts should have kicked the decision back to the people once it became clear that this extension of marriage was not for all mature willing companions but only a select group.

If marriage is for all mature willing companions then all mature willing companions should be allowed to form marriage groups as they see fit so long as all involved are mature willing companions.

Needless to say the 14th Amendment was violated by the judicial ruling that granted special privileges to a specific minority grouping.

As for forcing a religious institution to preform a marriage, even though secular law allows the such a marriage to be preformed, that should be up to the religious institution as to whether they will preform the service or not.

If the secular law allows it, while the religious institution doesn't due to their beliefs, then I would say any persons desiring such a union should seek the secular or civil form of union and have it preformed by the secular authorities.

*****SMILE*****





NOTE: I will not condone religious or secular authorities to allow a minor to be joined in such a union no matter what their beliefs or faith.

 

[emilynghiem]

Thanks Damaged Eagle
As I'm getting sick and tired, ornery and unapologetic in my old age,
I'm thinking I should write out (or start tweeting videos) of my own judicial opinions
on these matters, and reply to these Statesmen.

Sure, I'm all for having a Constitutional convention of States.
But let's address POLITICAL beliefs and a way to accommodate these
instead of imposing one party denomination over another.

Why not set up separate tax breaks and microlending investment
systems for people to fund the policies they want to develop freely?

Does this have to be a war to control things at the top, by forcing everything through federal govt? Why can't people vote with their checkbooks at the bottom,
by deciding where to invest labor and income, as donations or as investments?

I'd love to answer to this challenge.

(And also the Statesman who spoke out on the difference between
rightwing and Jihadist terrorists. We need to establish the difference going on
with people who respect Civil Authority and Constitutional principles of due process.
That is what makes the difference. Not someone's denomination by label,
but whether we respect equal civil rights and protections of others equally as ourselves.)

Let's call for a Constitutional convention.
And my vote will be for equal education, assistance,
mentorship programs and job experience in Constitutional law, mediation and governance.

Enough is enough.
If we solve the root problem, by golly,
all these other issues can be solved in turn!

 

[Damaged Eagle]

At this point I'm not sure a Constitutional Congress or much of anything in a civil manner will help.

Since civility towards opposing opinions has pretty much left the building and now violent actions to impose one's point of view is becoming the norm.

As I see it any attempt to dissuade either side to compromise is vanishing pressingly fast.

I believe we are at a point in United States history where it will take blood and violence to resolve the differences..... I hope I'm wrong.

*****SAD SMILE*****

 

[emilynghiem]

At this point I'm not sure a Constitutional Congress or much of anything in a civil manner will help.

Since civility towards opposing opinions has pretty much left the building and now violent actions to impose one's point of view is becoming the norm.

As I see it any attempt to dissuade either side to compromise is vanishing pressingly fast.

I believe we are at a point in United States history where it will take blood and violence to resolve the differences..... I hope I'm wrong.

*****SAD SMILE*****

Dear Damaged Eagle
If Trump and Clinton can "assassinate" each other's character in the MEDIA
then we have found yet another alternative to physical violence.

It's been said our court system took the place of dueling swords and pistols,
fighting to the death.

Well, when that system got overbogged down in bureucracy where people
decided to "bypass due process" by judging, hanging, witch-hunting and condemning
people of whatever accused charges they decide to issue by "free speech"
ANYTHING GOES. We've got a war going on just through the media,
including online/social media.

I've heard that the liberal establishment groups "buying out" yahoo, google,
facebook (even meetup.com) are anti-trump pro-resistance; and are using
that influence to decide who gets to congregate and pontificate online through their venues.

It's very interesting, very good and very bad at the same time.
We need to go through this learning curve of handling democratic process.
There is no shortcut, other than learning by direct experience.

Hopefully we can tolerate and support each other while we go through this
learning curve, of using our direct freedom of speech and press to
petition the govt for redressing grievances. We the people are the govt,
so we are learning to petition each other as directly as possible and
bypass whatever has been clogging up the legislative, judicial and now the executive systems.

We are learning, and I hope we can fully embrace and appreciate
the gift we have of resources and internet capabilities and access
to go through this stage of social and political development, and make gains on all fronts.

Take care and please just keep supporting everyone you know
who is fighting to defend their interests and representation.

As long as we support each other in keeping it as civilized and constructive
as possible, we will all come out ahead and better for it. It doesn't have to be bad.
Even the ugly emotions venting can be a positive process if we recognize it as such.

Like the anger or denial/projection phase in "grieving" we as humans
need to go through these emotional stages if we are going to clear
our emotions and minds for the next phases of where we are heading.
We are going to have to fix our problems TOGETHER, so if we are
NOT READY to work TOGETHER, then all that we see now is
the prep stages it takes to vent and break through the barriers
that otherwise need to come down before we CAN work TOGETHER.

So this is necessary, or it wouldn't be happening this way.
The process will take the direction it needs. We ought to
support one another as best we can, especially when we
find ourselves in opposition. We need to pull each other through this
and make the most of our political process and freedom.

It's like having a baby, it's a big painful bloody mess,
but when we understand why it has to be such a struggle,
we don't have to fear it and make it harder on ourselves.

We need to breathe, pull and push together, and get this baby out.
We are birthing the next generation and stages of social, political and spiritual development.
The labor pains the trials and tribulations are going to get more and more intense.
But we will all be relieved when we get past this,
and the new world is born, the peace and justice and freedom
we all see and demand as ours. It's ours for the asking but
it's going to take a lot to get there. Easier if we work
together instead of working against each other, but the
baby is going to come out regardless. We can either tear
each other up getting it out, or we can pull together and bear with each other.

All I can do is support all my neighbors in whatever role
or side they feel is their job to defend and fight for.
And cheer on the troops to win the war on all sides.

 

[Damaged Eagle]

^^^Ferguson, MO: August, 2014^^^

^^^Baltimore, MD: April, 2015^^^^

^^^Minneapolis, MN: March, 2016^^^

^^^Dallas, TX: July, 2016^^^

^^^Baton Rouge, LA: July, 2016^^^

Milwaukee, WI: August, 2016^^^

^^^Washington DC: January. 2017

^^^Berkley, CA: February, 2017^^^

The frequency of these incidents is increasing.....

*****SMILE*****





.....I'm not so hopeful.

 

[emilynghiem]

View attachment 112799

^^^Ferguson, MO: August, 2014^^^

^^^Baltimore, MD: April, 2015^^^^

View attachment 112805

^^^Minneapolis, MN: March, 2016^^^

^^^Dallas, TX: July, 2016^^^

^^^Baton Rouge, LA: July, 2016^^^

Milwaukee, WI: August, 2016^^^

View attachment 112808

^^^Washington DC: January. 2017


View attachment 112806

^^^Berkley, CA: February, 2017^^^

The frequency of these incidents is increasing.....

*****SMILE*****





.....I'm not so hopeful.

Hi Damaged Eagle
1. The Wild Fires burning and riots are part of the process, too. Notice, that like with all "civil wars," there are shootings and killings on all sides (both officers and civilians) before we reach peace and understanding. But it's less than we lost in the past. There is a curve going on, where the process is still showing progress even when we think we should have been past the "tribal war" phases by now. It will happen, but not as soon as we thought. We still have to go through all the steps and stages.

The difference is we are AWARE of the process, and can learn to mitigate and work with the pressures and eruptions caused by conflict and oppression.

2. As for "increasing frequency" -- again -- this is what I mean by comparing it to the pain of child labor. Closer and closer to the end, the "contractions" become more frequent and more intense. That's a sign that the process is speeding up, converging faster and faster to reach a resolution. The more intense fluctuations and disruptions, that means even GREATER CHANGE is being condensed in a "shorter span of time." it may be harder to go through the ups and downs that are more disruptive, but the time is shorter; so in a way that's sometimes better than "milder" disruptions and fluctuations "spread out over longer periods of time." I'd rather speed it up, and get over it faster; so the intensity and distress is going to be amped up by condensing the learning curve on a time lapse.

3. as for losing or not having hope. Damaged Eagle that's ALSO part of the process of letting go and not trying to dictate or control everything. So that's actually a positive healthy sign of having a realistic perspective. We need that, too. That's not a bad thing either, but perfectly natural. That tells me we will get through this. With eyes wide open, fully aware of our conflicts in perception, which is necessary for us to grow and not just follow by blind faith or by tradition. We have to learn by questioning and rejecting, so that we investigate and make decisions as independently as possible. Unfortunately that learning curve costs us bumps and scrapes, and falls flat on our behinds. These are expensive lessons to learn in life, but the experience understanding and liberation we gain at the end is invaluable and well worth the price.

 

[Damaged Eagle]

I did not say or mean I did not have hope.

I mean that I do not think that we've seen the worst of it and it had best not come my way.

*****SMILE*****

 

[emilynghiem]

I did not say or mean I did not have hope.

I mean that I do not think that we've seen the worst of it and it had best not come my way.

*****SMILE*****

Dear Damaged Eagle
With what you've been through, and your compassion wisdom and understanding you extend because of your experience, I don't think it accomplishes anything for you to suffer more of the same. You have been through enough and have plenty to deal with what is already going on. So that's enough for your part of the work to do. (If for some reason you aren't learning the lessons in letting go that you are supposed to, sure, you might see more burdens overwhelm you until you learn to let go of "the hot potato" and not hold on to it so you don't get burned. I think you are past that, am I right? I know I'm too old to argue and fret over this garbage, and ready to retire!)

The brunt of the mess is for people who still haven't learned how to share responsibility for addressing and fixing these messes.

As long as people project anger and blame, they attract more of the same to pile up on their plates. You get what you give, until you learn how justice works in this world.

As long as you are not part of that problem of projecting and piling on more garbage to the pile, you don't have to worry about that.

We all have to focus on cleaning up the generations of garbage that has been stockpiling and is now exploding in our faces again. It is more from the past, and doesn't have to mean repeating more of the same.

You don't seem the type who is oblivious and contributing to the vicious cycle, but more on the side of breaking it. So your role is different. You may get some mud on your face from other people slinging it, and hitting you accidentally, but you yourself are not in to the mudslinging.

The more we can forgive, we don't have to get sucked into the negativity and past patterns. Some people can't help going through the anger and venting phases. But if we know this is going on, we can manage it like letting wildfires burn themselves out but containing them where they don't consume whole towns and get out of hand. Some of the protests and outrageousness just has to pass, and the most we can do is manage and cap the damages until the bad karma, the ill consequences of past causes that is still playing itself out, works its way through the system.

This too shall pass. This too shall pass!

 

[emilynghiem]

Here, Damaged Eagle for you:
http://www.houstonprogressive.org

 

[Damaged Eagle]

*****SMILE*****

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Seems Clear and Common Sense to me
that Govt CANNOT establish Marriage laws
BIASED one way or another. Or else the people
whose beliefs are infringed upon or discriminated
against are going to complain by the First Amendment,
and the Fourteenth by not protecting their beliefs equally.

It has nothing to do with religion.

Marriage always has been,and always will be, between a man and a woman. To demand that a sick homosexual mockery of a marriage be treated as being in any way comparable to a genuine marriage is just pure madness.

Common sense dictates that our laws not be crafted to treat evil as equal to good, perversion as equal to decency, or madness as equal to reason. If laws are to reject any basis in morality or sanity, then there is really no purpose to them.

 

[emilynghiem]

Seems Clear and Common Sense to me
that Govt CANNOT establish Marriage laws
BIASED one way or another. Or else the people
whose beliefs are infringed upon or discriminated
against are going to complain by the First Amendment,
and the Fourteenth by not protecting their beliefs equally.

It has nothing to do with religion.

Marriage always has been,and always will be, between a man and a woman. To demand that a sick homosexual mockery of a marriage be treated as being in any way comparable to a genuine marriage is just pure madness.

Common sense dictates that our laws not be crafted to treat evil as equal to good, perversion as equal to decency, or madness as equal to reason. If laws are to reject any basis in morality or sanity, then there is really no purpose to them.

Dear Bob Blaylock
Maybe to you it is purely natural and not to do with religion.

But for those with liberal and LGBT beliefs, if this is their creed or religion, then what they want to exercise does have to do with THEIR free exercise of religion.

That is why I recognize denoucing "bans" on gay marriage as unconstituional because of people who believe in this spiritually. It is inherent in their beliefs identity and practice , so govt should not regulate it, and should neither prohibit nor establish it.

The problem LGBT are running into is similar to Christians who believe in public prayer through Christ incorprated in public schools and institutions. Both the LGBT and Christians want free exercise of their beliefs, but there is a constituional limit when it comes to govt and public institutions .

To be fair we should keep govt laws as neutral and universally inclusive as possible. Both sides of marriage beliefs and debate should have equal freedom to exercise their beliefs without infringement by or on other beliefs. So either the states stick to civil unions and contracts for all people with no mention or regulations at all on what is the social or personal relationship between the partners in a civil contract or partnership ; or perhaps states can agree to restore the full rights of Christians Muslims Atheists etc to express and establish their beliefs and practices through govt if the LGBT are allowed to endorse and incorporate their creed beliefs and practices through govt . either remove all references that are faith based and relative to some groups but rejected by others; or open the door to tolerance and freedom of expression for all faith based practices equally.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Dear Bob Blaylock
Maybe to you it is purely natural and not to do with religion.

But for those with liberal and LGBT beliefs, if this is their creed or religion, then what they want to exercise does have to do with THEIR free exercise of religion.

That is why I recognize denoucing "bans" on gay marriage as unconstituional because of people who believe in this spiritually. It is inherent in their beliefs identity and practice , so govt should not regulate it, and should neither prohibit nor establish it.

Again, it has nothing to do with religion. Marriage has always been between a man and a woman, and that is how it will always be; never between two men nor between two women. This is based on immutable biological facts, and this is how it has been recognized and treated throughout history, in every viable human society that has ever existed, without regard to which religions, if any, have had what influences on any society. Those rare instances of society that tried to reject this, without exception, fell into ruin; and there is no reason to expect that ours will be any different, if we continue along this disastrous path.

To be fair we should keep govt laws as neutral and universally inclusive as possible.

That is the kind of “neutral” that demands that madness be treated as equal to sanity, that perversion be treated as equal to decency, that evil be treated as equal to good; and which, in practice results in the former being treated as “more equal than” the latter. And it is completely wrong. I am amazed by the vacuousness of mind that it takes to defend such “neutrality”, and to remain so stupidly oblivious to where it is clearly leading us as a society.

 

[emilynghiem]

Dear Bob Blaylock
Maybe to you it is purely natural and not to do with religion.

But for those with liberal and LGBT beliefs, if this is their creed or religion, then what they want to exercise does have to do with THEIR free exercise of religion.

That is why I recognize denoucing "bans" on gay marriage as unconstituional because of people who believe in this spiritually. It is inherent in their beliefs identity and practice , so govt should not regulate it, and should neither prohibit nor establish it.

Again, it has nothing to do with religion. Marriage has always been between a man and a woman, and that is how it will always be; never between two men nor between two women. This is based on immutable biological facts, and this is how it has been recognized and treated throughout history, in every viable human society that has ever existed, without regard to which religions, if any, have had what influences on any society. Those rare instances of society that tried to reject this, without exception, fell into ruin; and there is no reason to expect that ours will be any different, if we continue along this disastrous path.

To be fair we should keep govt laws as neutral and universally inclusive as possible.

That is the kind of “neutral” that demands that madness be treated as equal to sanity, that perversion be treated as equal to decency, that evil be treated as equal to good; and which, in practice results in the former being treated as “more equal than” the latter. And it is completely wrong. I am amazed by the vacuousness of mind that it takes to defend such “neutrality”, and to remain so stupidly oblivious to where it is clearly leading us as a society.

No, we must be miscommunicating.
1. Christianity does not need to be endorsed through govt as an institution in order to proliferate. Neither does marriage have to be endorsed by govt in order to be practiced and promoted as historically traditional. Just like health care does not need to be instituted through govt in order to be provided.

Govt can stick to just the civil contracts.
People can support and promote marriage traditions, similar to Christian traditions and this doesn't require govt especially not federal govt to institute.

2. the marriage definition does not take into account the BELIEFS OF OTHER PEOPLE (not you and the definition you give of marriage) but of people using marriage to include same sex couples.

So THEIR beliefs are part of the religious issue involved here.
I'm talking about THEIR "LGBT" beliefs being religious in nature and thus protected from infringement or discrimination (not necessarily yours but THEIR beliefs counting as "religious freedom expression and practice").

If LGBT religiously believe in marriage equality, meaning same sex couples included, then the govt cannot establish a definition or practice of marriage that EXCLUDES or DISCRIMINATES against those of these other beliefs.

In order NOT to establish marriage as meaning same sex,
but to remain neutral, that is why I recommend civil contracts remain under govt. And all the rest be left to people and states to decide.

Bob Blaylock if you believe so strongly it is legally necessary for govt to endorse man-woman marriage, then if YOUR STATE passes such laws democratically, states have authority to represent the people of that state.
That's fine, but it is still unconstitutional if people of your state also believe same-sex marriage should be included. So again by sticking to neutral language of civil unions contracts or partnerships, all beliefs can be accommodated without govt imposing one or the other on anyone of the other beliefs.

An equivalent example I've seen of "neutral" language is the case of state laws on prayer in schools: because prayer was not agreed on by secular opponents, the LANGUAGE was changed to "moment of silence" so people who believe in prayer could still do so, without imposing on people who believed otherwise. This law was successfully passed. Prayer did not need to be instituted through govt PER SE in order to allow the choice of it.

 

[yiostheoy]

I'm not following all these rants.

I thought the SCOTUS already settled this ?!

 

[Bob Blaylock]

That is why I recognize denoucing "bans" on gay marriage as unconstituional …

·
·
·​

Bob Blaylock if you believe so strongly it is legally necessary for govt to endorse man-woman marriage, then if YOUR STATE passes such laws democratically, states have authority to represent the people of that state.
That's fine, but it is still unconstitutional…

I do not think that there is so much as a single word, a single letter in the Constitution that was authored by anyone who did not clearly understand marriage as the union of a man and a woman; and certainly nothing that would reflect any intent that a sick homosexual mockery of marriage ever ought to be recognized by law as being in any way comparable to a genuine marriage.

This is what liberal filth do—they make up “Constitutional rights” that are nowhere mentioned, implied, nor even vaguely hinted-at in the Constitution, and use these as excuses to disregard what the Constitution clearly says. And you seem to be taking this a step further, by trying to define the immoral inclinations of sick perverts as being somehow “religious” and therefore protected under the First Amendment. If this logic were to hold, then really, there is no conduct, no matter how harmful, that cannot be upheld by the same excuse.