NY Gay Marriage Baggage

[ABikerSailor]

It's really simple.......if you don't like gay marriage, don't marry a gay. If you do like gay marriage, go marry a gay.

I thought this was a free country.

 

[oldsalt]

It's really simple.......if you don't like gay marriage, don't marry a gay. If you do like gay marriage, go marry a gay.

I thought this was a free country.

Dam, and I thought I was good. Must be the Sailor thing ;^)

 

[emilynghiem]

[I never said that I do not support free speech. I do. I exercise it everytime I get on here and post things that others do not agree with.

What I was trying to point out is that if the ACLU supports the free speech of a group like NAMBLA then they have a skewed sense of what speech should be free. Not all speech is free you cant promote panic, disorder, incite riots, and illegal activites. But the ACLU can and will support any free speech for anyone wth no checks.

As for the quoted post above; academically you are right. When a group advocated the illegal sickness of its members and a small childs life is ruined you post dont mean anything. Respect and offering contray views will not protect children.

I appologize to the OP because this has gotten away from your original point. I think we need another thread about free speech and the ACLU.

Hi Tony: I don't know why we should perceive this as disagreeing or disputing with each other, as I agree with what you say here. Maybe we are talking past each other?

The reason the ACLU, and even lawyers in court, defend one side without checks is that is how our adversarial legal system is set up; the advocates are responsible for lobbying one way and it is not their job to placate the other side. In mediation the process is different, but even that process has been hijacked and abused by legal gameplaying (such as asking impossible conditions without concession or compromise, to force the issue to go to trial claiming mediation failed, or abusing the process to get information to sue the other side)

I agree with you that more responsibility shoudl be taken.
Not just getting someone off the hook by the fifth amendment or disqualifying evidence and voiding a charge, as lawyers are paid to do and if they miss any opportunity to serve their clients' interests they can be charged with malpractice, or the case can be thrown by inadequate represention or other fault to the process, and abuse that to get off the hook.

This culture of onesidedness has similar biases in the political process, not jsut courts
as I cite here for example of where this attitude is REWARDED and encouraged.
Also, in the media, where it is "not the job" of the group doing the negative campaigning to address the bias, but just to win people over emotionally. Never mind solving the actual problem, if the goal is just to discredit the opposition.

The problem is that government cannot be abused to censor or mandate changes,
the changes have to come from people choosing and agreeing to respect the same laws we want to enforce. That is a personal moral/ethical internal choice, and cannot be mandated by government.

The most I think it could involve political/democratic process and authority:
If people in a district/neighborhood CHOOSE to implement some standard code of conduct for THEMSELVES, they can write whatever terms of mediation/conflict resolution they want to avoid letting issues of abuse escalate into more expensive legal action or damage.
So that level of law enforcement, by local choice and neighborhood policy agreed to by all the residents represented, would not be imposed by outside government but would be more like self-regulation, like agreeing to follow local rules and policies similar to religious freedom being by choice and not mandated by any outside entity.

Sorry to hijack this thread.

I guess the common "thread" of how this applies to the original post, or any issue being discussed on this board, is that the consistent use of free speech/right to petition/due process to redress grievances would PREVENT any issue or conflict from being pushed into the jurisdiction of govt authority to "try to make a decision for the people." Instead, people just like you and me and others here, would hash out all the issues and form an agreement, and base public policy on where we agree so there is no unfair imposition or bias of one group or view over another. Mediating adn resolving all conflicts, especially where religious views are involved that cannot be compromised but all views are ideally to be respected and protected equally for laws to be Constitutional, which inherently involves the exercise of freedom of speech, press, right to petition and to redress grievances.

That idea applies indirectly to any topic being discussed, as to how to resolve it fairly.
Sorry for adding to the detour, and hope it helps indirectly to resolve related issues.

 

[emilynghiem]

It's really simple.......if you don't like gay marriage, don't marry a gay. If you do like gay marriage, go marry a gay.

I thought this was a free country.

Dear ABikerSailor: My bf brought up a funny point, from a broader perspective by looking at similar issues of freedom and offense by imposing conflicting views on others.

He pondered WHY do gay groups expect people to be "tolerant" when two men kiss in public or get married (where if you are offended that is YOUR problem not THEIRS)
but when it comes to a cross on a public monument, even a veterans' memorial,
then one atheist who is "offended" can sue to have that thing removed or banned?

I thought that was ironic and disturbing!

He is asking why do the marriage laws have to be changed to accommodate the minority while the majority is offended; but then the opposite happens when the shoe is on the other foot, where the atheist in the minority is not expected to change to accommodate another group equally, but any perceived offense is argued as irreparable harm. Why is the government allowed to endorse a bias this way?

 

[emilynghiem]

It's done everyday, in News, in Advertising, in Politics. Once you open the door to censoring, it becomes a tool of the Powers of the moment. There are lines in the sand, true enough, just not always where we think they should be.

Who says you have to censor anyone in order to correct the problem?

Just watch how you vote with your money, your words, which ideas from people or groups you support and promote. By enforcing conflict resolution and mediation that includes all views and points in forming practical solutions and policies that fairly represent the public, there is no need to abuse free speech to discredit or misrepresent anybody or anything.

We the people can check ourselves, and reinforce a more consistent standard for any other people or groups, whether media religious or political institutions.

 

[Intense]

It's done everyday, in News, in Advertising, in Politics. Once you open the door to censoring, it becomes a tool of the Powers of the moment. There are lines in the sand, true enough, just not always where we think they should be.

Who says you have to censor anyone in order to correct the problem?

Just watch how you vote with your money, your words, which ideas from people or groups you support and promote. By enforcing conflict resolution and mediation that includes all views and points in forming practical solutions and policies that fairly represent the public, there is no need to abuse free speech to discredit or misrepresent anybody or anything.

We the people can check ourselves, and reinforce a more consistent standard for any other people or groups, whether media religious or political institutions.

Who says you have to censor anyone in order to correct the problem?

I don't know who, You? I support free Expression, Free Speech. Just know the consequences. Just because a claim is voiced or printed does not make it true. Still one has the Right, and Charge to bear Witness, and tell the Truth about what you see, or not. That makes it a matter of Conscience only, unless one is under Oath, at the time.

Just watch how you vote with your money, your words, which ideas from people or groups you support and promote. By enforcing conflict resolution and mediation that includes all views and points in forming practical solutions and policies that fairly represent the public, there is no need to abuse free speech to discredit or misrepresent anybody or anything.

Thought, word, action, that is purpose driven, is a good thing, when value, principle, and Ideal are in harmony with it, no argument there. When conflict resolution is in tune with the Spirit of Justice, including the true weight of each relevant factor, that is a good thing too, Not all views are relevant, or equal in weight or priority though, just a thought concerning dealing with manipulations and tangents that do indeed obstruct perception and the service of Justice.

We are in agreement that there is no need to abuse free speech, or misrepresent, in the service of Justice, actually there is no excuse for it. Still it is a Human condition, a fruit of original Sin, something we each have to deal with to some degree, both inside and out. Comes a time when we each need to choose sides there.

 

[Gadawg73]

It's really simple.......if you don't like gay marriage, don't marry a gay. If you do like gay marriage, go marry a gay.

I thought this was a free country.

Dear ABikerSailor: My bf brought up a funny point, from a broader perspective by looking at similar issues of freedom and offense by imposing conflicting views on others.

He pondered WHY do gay groups expect people to be "tolerant" when two men kiss in public or get married (where if you are offended that is YOUR problem not THEIRS)
but when it comes to a cross on a public monument, even a veterans' memorial,
then one atheist who is "offended" can sue to have that thing removed or banned?

I thought that was ironic and disturbing!

He is asking why do the marriage laws have to be changed to accommodate the minority while the majority is offended; but then the opposite happens when the shoe is on the other foot, where the atheist in the minority is not expected to change to accommodate another group equally, but any perceived offense is argued as irreparable harm. Why is the government allowed to endorse a bias this way?

Every grave in every veteran's cemetery I have ever saw had a CROSS on it.
We do not live in a country where majority rules. Read the Constitution, a document founded on the principle of LIMITED GOVERNMENT, not telling what people what they can not do but telling government what THEY CAN NOT DO.
Your example is no bias Constitutionally. We are a nation of LAWS, not men and their various religous beliefs and social responses to equal protection under the law.

 

[Gadawg73]

The former head of The Republican National Committee spearheaded the lobbying campaign for the passage of the bill in New York. Republican donors funded the majority of the tab.
Ted Olson, conservative Reepublican said it best in California "freedom to marry is consistent with conservative values."
Finally, back to what a conservative traditionally stands for: fiscal responsibility and individual freedom.

 

[Spoonman]

It's really simple.......if you don't like gay marriage, don't marry a gay. If you do like gay marriage, go marry a gay.

I thought this was a free country.

try leading a prayer at a HS graduation and you'll see how free it is.

 

[Intense]

It's really simple.......if you don't like gay marriage, don't marry a gay. If you do like gay marriage, go marry a gay.

I thought this was a free country.

Dear ABikerSailor: My bf brought up a funny point, from a broader perspective by looking at similar issues of freedom and offense by imposing conflicting views on others.

He pondered WHY do gay groups expect people to be "tolerant" when two men kiss in public or get married (where if you are offended that is YOUR problem not THEIRS)
but when it comes to a cross on a public monument, even a veterans' memorial,
then one atheist who is "offended" can sue to have that thing removed or banned?

I thought that was ironic and disturbing!

He is asking why do the marriage laws have to be changed to accommodate the minority while the majority is offended; but then the opposite happens when the shoe is on the other foot, where the atheist in the minority is not expected to change to accommodate another group equally, but any perceived offense is argued as irreparable harm. Why is the government allowed to endorse a bias this way?

Every grave in every veteran's cemetery I have ever saw had a CROSS on it.
We do not live in a country where majority rules. Read the Constitution, a document founded on the principle of LIMITED GOVERNMENT, not telling what people what they can not do but telling government what THEY CAN NOT DO.
Your example is no bias Constitutionally. We are a nation of LAWS, not men and their various religous beliefs and social responses to equal protection under the law.

Nope, not every Veterans Headstone is a cross, far from it.

 

[Spoonman]

It's really simple.......if you don't like gay marriage, don't marry a gay. If you do like gay marriage, go marry a gay.

I thought this was a free country.

Dear ABikerSailor: My bf brought up a funny point, from a broader perspective by looking at similar issues of freedom and offense by imposing conflicting views on others.

He pondered WHY do gay groups expect people to be "tolerant" when two men kiss in public or get married (where if you are offended that is YOUR problem not THEIRS)
but when it comes to a cross on a public monument, even a veterans' memorial,
then one atheist who is "offended" can sue to have that thing removed or banned?

I thought that was ironic and disturbing!

He is asking why do the marriage laws have to be changed to accommodate the minority while the majority is offended; but then the opposite happens when the shoe is on the other foot, where the atheist in the minority is not expected to change to accommodate another group equally, but any perceived offense is argued as irreparable harm. Why is the government allowed to endorse a bias this way?

very good points actually. but for future reference it's gaybikersailor

 

[Flopper]

The former head of The Republican National Committee spearheaded the lobbying campaign for the passage of the bill in New York. Republican donors funded the majority of the tab.
Ted Olson, conservative Reepublican said it best in California "freedom to marry is consistent with conservative values."
Finally, back to what a conservative traditionally stands for: fiscal responsibility and individual freedom.

Well, that should go over like a lead balloon with Christian Right.

 

[Flopper]

It's really simple.......if you don't like gay marriage, don't marry a gay. If you do like gay marriage, go marry a gay.

I thought this was a free country.

try leading a prayer at a HS graduation and you'll see how free it is.

Your freedom ends where mine begins.

 

[Gadawg73]

Dear ABikerSailor: My bf brought up a funny point, from a broader perspective by looking at similar issues of freedom and offense by imposing conflicting views on others.

He pondered WHY do gay groups expect people to be "tolerant" when two men kiss in public or get married (where if you are offended that is YOUR problem not THEIRS)
but when it comes to a cross on a public monument, even a veterans' memorial,
then one atheist who is "offended" can sue to have that thing removed or banned?

I thought that was ironic and disturbing!

He is asking why do the marriage laws have to be changed to accommodate the minority while the majority is offended; but then the opposite happens when the shoe is on the other foot, where the atheist in the minority is not expected to change to accommodate another group equally, but any perceived offense is argued as irreparable harm. Why is the government allowed to endorse a bias this way?

Every grave in every veteran's cemetery I have ever saw had a CROSS on it.
We do not live in a country where majority rules. Read the Constitution, a document founded on the principle of LIMITED GOVERNMENT, not telling what people what they can not do but telling government what THEY CAN NOT DO.
Your example is no bias Constitutionally. We are a nation of LAWS, not men and their various religous beliefs and social responses to equal protection under the law.

Nope, not every Veterans Headstone is a cross, far from it.

I have seen Stars of David on crosses.
Some have monuments, you are correct.

 

[emilynghiem]

Every grave in every veteran's cemetery I have ever saw had a CROSS on it.
We do not live in a country where majority rules. Read the Constitution, a document founded on the principle of LIMITED GOVERNMENT, not telling what people what they can not do but telling government what THEY CAN NOT DO.
Your example is no bias Constitutionally. We are a nation of LAWS, not men and their various religous beliefs and social responses to equal protection under the law.

Dear GD: by limited govt, shouldn't the state stay out of marriage altogether, as a religious ceremony or sacrament, and only recognize civil unions? while leaving marriages to the people or to their respective churches so they retain freedom.

That is where I agree with many other people. I believe that is constitutionally consistent.

 

[nitroz]

We each have a Right to Free Speech. What we do not necessarily have a Right to is an Audience. Nobody is forced to listen.

He nailed it.
Now stop complaining about it.

Nailed what exactly??? What am I complaining about??? I'm just stating fact. We Each have a Right to Expression. Learn to live with it.

You aren't complaining. XD
You nailed the freedom of speech and everyone's rights on the head.

Now everyone should stop complaining about what everyone preaches and either listen to it or ignore it.

 

[emilynghiem]

He nailed it.
Now stop complaining about it.

Nailed what exactly??? What am I complaining about??? I'm just stating fact. We Each have a Right to Expression. Learn to live with it.

You aren't complaining. XD
You nailed the freedom of speech and everyone's rights on the head.

Now everyone should stop complaining about what everyone preaches and either listen to it or ignore it.

Do you apply the same to the atheist in court suing about a cross or a street sign?
That the atheist has the right to sue, but the state does not have to respond in favor?
It seems whether the state responds for or against the suit,
doesn't that show bias toward one view or another? How is this equal protection for all views if the state is being asked to take sides?

Hi Nitroz: What about the right to petition? At what point is government NOT responsible for fully redressing someone's petition "as long as it has been given due process and heard"

I happen to have a MAJOR MAJOR issue with this point about petitioning and grievances.
And equal due process in a legal system where people don't have equal resources or access or influence.
I find many cases where ending the process where the laws says it's legal to stop
FAILED to REDRESS the petition and grievance, to the point where people were
DENIED justice and equal protection of the laws. I have a REAL problem with this!

So I believe
A. government authority is determined by who/which entity successfully resolves the petition, because the people's consent determines public authority
so if you shirk your responsibility, then you are not acting as government
the people are the government, whoever accepts that responsibility to redress a grievance is basically acting as government either for themselves or on behalf of protecting others
B. conflicts should be resolved by consensus wherever possible
in order to protect interests equally (by the 14th Amendment) and consent of the governed to prevent imposition of a private bias (whether deemed religious or not, I consider
it within religious freedom whether it is a religious opinion or what, it's someone's belief)

If people agree to disagree, then their consent is not violated.
but if conflicts continue, such as over crosses or gay marriage, over immigration or abortion, the Terri Schiavo case, etc. etc. you can usually find some religious or spiritual element that people aren't willing to compromise which well should not be!

So I believe consensus decisions on such matters are the responsiblity of the
people and not for the state to "step in and impose a decision" biased one way or another

Now if people AGREE to that imposition, for the sake of law and order, fine!
I generally do not.

I generally end up putting up with the "majority rule" because that is more objective to enforce while "equal protection of the laws" is relative and subjective and harder to prove.

It is ironic that by my beliefs about consent, I do not go around imposing my views on others, as an atheist suing to remove a cross or reference to heaven. I respect the consent of others even if it disagrees with mine. Only if there is a consensus to change it a certain way, I would go with that, which usually involves mediation and prevents litigation.

So all these cases, from Terri Schiavo to the reference to heaven on a street sign, if I were the judge I would state that the government has no right to decide for one side or the other in an issue of religious views or spiritual interpretations. So I would be compelled to order the groups to mediate to form a solution they can all live with
as protecting their constitutional rights equally, including agreement how to share the costs involved. If they agree to take a vote, what are the agreed rules?

I think I would be a mean and impossible judge, asking people to mediate conflicts!
That's why I stay away from politics and support mediating conflicts in private instead.
If you make peace there, these issues do not have to escalate to the public arena.

You cannot order or force people to respect each other's consent, they have to consent freely, or you contradict that very principle! So the only way I know is to promote good examples of cases that have been mediated, to work out conflicts and show how the process works, or ought to work, and let that standard influence the political process.

So ironic that the one approach I believe would stop these issues from being put in state hands where they don't belong is mediation; but that has to be freely chosen in order to work and cannot be forced to work. That is why we see these issues going unresolved.

You cannot force people to work out their personal issues, but that is what they would have to do to prevent these no-win situations. Otherwise, no matter which side the laws rule in favor of, that is going to carry a bias that discriminates against the other views unless the sides agree on a policy by consensus accommodating their interests equally!

 

[Intense]

Personally I do not support Consensus, there is no concept not twisted and warped, and unrecognizable from the original vision. What we Incorporate under Federalism is the Power of the Super Majority 75%, not Consensus which requires a Unanimous Vote. Consensus is a way to obstruct, while the Super Majority, is rooted more on Conviction, stronger than impulse or the flavor of the day.

 

[emilynghiem]

Personally I do not support Consensus, there is no concept not twisted and warped, and unrecognizable from the original vision. What we Incorporate under Federalism is the Power of the Super Majority 75%, not Consensus which requires a Unanimous Vote. Consensus is a way to obstruct, while the Super Majority, is rooted more on Conviction, stronger than impulse or the flavor of the day.

1. Hmmm, most people say that until someone abuses majority rule to bulldoze over the consent of the governed, mainly theirs!

2 I'm talking more specifically about cases where people do not agree to majority rule, but insist on having their beliefs protected equally, whether that is the minority or what.

Are you saying it is okay for Christianity to be declared the national religion if the majority voted to make this exception (for whatever reason if it did happen)

I think people's answers to such questions involve whether they feel threatened or not.

3. No, Consensus does not need have a unanimous vote.
For example, in writing out which options to vote for, people can agree 100% on
several options and then AGREE to accept whatever the majority votes for!

So you still have consensus, but by that consensus you agree what options
are acceptable for majority to rule on.

In the case of the gay marriage, immigation or health care debates
the ways these laws were written NO people did NOT agree to those options.
They have objections not fully addressed.

So that is where consensus would allow all conflicts to be addressed
BEFORE YOU AGREE TO A VOTE.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Since no one is demanding Catholic churches marry them, what's your point?

The stance of the church in gay marriage has nothing to do with the procreation of children. They have no problems with infertile heterosexual couples marrying.

You have no idea what's going on political, legislatively or judicially, or you're pretending not to understand:

HOW SAME SEX MARRIAGE THREATENS RELIGIOUS LIBERTY

Is Suppressing Religious Liberty the Point of SSM Bills?

Conservative Activists Argue Gay Marriage Threatens Religious Liberty


Whereas morality is the underlying foundation of liberty, empathy is the operative substance of morality in the political arena. The first casualty of immorality is empathy. As empathy declines, so does liberty.