emilynghiem
Constitutionalist / Universalist
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?
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?
Last edited: