Texas Governor Defends Religious Liberties, Game On!!!

[Bruce_T_Laney]

Greg Abbott can issue all the directives he want, but in the end the issuing of Marriage Licenses can not be stopped. A Church does not have to officiate over a wedding when it come to same sex marriage but a state clerk can not deny individuals a marriage license based on the clerk religious convictions.

The fact is Abbott is on the losing end and the OP'er applauding the stupid move by the Governor of Texas just indicates to me that the OP'er has yet to understand the battle is over and all that is left is the crying by those like Abbott and the OP'er.

So as Abbott wastes taxpayer money to fight a battle that has already been lost it will be great ammo for the next Governor election and getting the radical right out of power in Texas.

I know the Abbott supporters will scuff at my words, but in the end the clerks will have to issue the license, state officials have to recognize the unions, and discrimination will not be tolerated.

It will take time but like interracial marriages same sex marriages will be accepted and this battle will be forgotten except to the pages of history and those like Abbott will be remember for being a religious bigot that he is...

 

[cnm]

Fuck same sex marriage..................

Next up they will want to marry their favorite goat..........

Right, because humans and goats are the same thing.

No need to judge him, I sure he's got his reasons...

 

[EriktheRed]

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton on Friday declared that nothing will change the definition of marriage, despite the Supreme Court's ruling that same-sex couples in the U.S. have the right to marry.

"Today’s ruling by five Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court marks a radical departure from countless generations of societal law and tradition. The impact of this opinion on our society and the familial fabric of our nation will be profound. Far from a victory for anyone, this is instead a dilution of marriage as a societal institution," Paxton said in a statement.

"But no court, no law, no rule, and no words will change the simple truth that marriage is the union of one man and one woman. Nothing will change the importance of a mother and a father to the raising of a child. And nothing will change our collective resolve that all Americans should be able to exercise their faith in their daily lives without infringement and harassment," he continued.

On Thursday Paxton told county clerks to wait for his directive following the Supreme Court ruling, indicating that he was considering defying a ruling in favor of same-sex marriage.

"To be clear — the law in the state of Texas is that marriage is one man and one woman, and the position of this office is that the United States Constitution clearly does not speak to any right to marriage other than one man and one woman and that the First Amendment clearly protects religious liberty and the right to believe in traditional marriage without facing discrimination," he said in a statement, according to the Texas Tribune.

But on Friday, Paxton said in the headline of his statement that the state would be "following high court’s flawed ruling."

Texas AG No Court No Law No Rule Will Change Definition Of Marriage

 

[EriktheRed]

You realize he's just trying to force a court battle that will eventually be lost by texas

Texas already knows what it is like getting into a fight you MIGHT lose. They have a monument to it. Sometimes the stand is more important then a win or loss. BECAUSE it is the stand that measures the person.

And we can continue laughing at their stance because they're gonna lose.

 

[EriktheRed]

It will be interesting to see how this plays out, Texas just gave a big FU to SCOTUS

Texas Governor Defends Religious Liberties

There is one state (and if you have read my articles before, you know which one I’m talking about) that is already leading the way, in essence combating SCOTUS and their disastrous decision. Of course, I’m talking about the Lone Star State.

In a directive issued in the last few hours, Texas Governor Gregg Abbott has informed all those agencies that they are to comply with the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, Article I of the Texas Constitution, and the Texas Religious Freedom Act. In other words, he just shut down same-sex marriage in Texas and ordered everyone to preserve the religious liberties and First Amendment rights of all Texans.

Read it here:

“Texans of all faiths must be absolutely secure in the knowledge that their religious freedom is beyond the reach of government,” Governor Abbott wrote in the memorandum obtained by Breitbart Texas. “Renewing and reinforcing that promise is all the more important in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Obergefell v. Hodges. The government must never pressure a person to abandon or violate his or her sincerely held religious beliefs regarding a topic such as marriage. That sort of religious coercion will never be a ‘compelling governmental interest,’ and it will never be ‘the least restrictive means of furthering that interest.’”

“With these obligations in mind,” Abbott continued, “I expect all agencies under my direction to prioritize compliance with the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, Article I of the Texas Constitution, and the Texas Religious Freedom Restoration Act. All state agency heads should ensure that no one acting on behalf of their agency takes any adverse action against any person, as defined in Chapter 311 of the Texas Government Code, on account of the person’s act or refusal to act that is substantially motivated by sincere religious belief. This order applies to any agency decision, including but not limited to granting or denying benefits, managing agency employees, entering or enforcing agency contracts, licensing and permitting decisions, or enforcing state laws and regulations.”

Governor of Texas Just Said What He s Doing After Gay Marriage Ruling It s HARDCORE

It's done and over , it is the law of the United States

The Constitution is the law of the land
and Natural Laws are the law of humanity.

guno you cannot legislate changes to people's beliefs by a court ruling.
People will still believe as they do, and defend that by natural laws
in the First and Fourteenth Amendment protecting beliefs EQUALLY.

so you will still see people defending their BELIEFS who will not consent to govt dictating that.
sorry but the higher laws of humanity include free will and faith that is based on free choice not coercion.
And certainly not dictating people's beliefs by govt authority
which violates constitutional laws based on universal principles of human nature.

the higher laws will motivate greater political change
to resolve the real issues this ruling did not address.

Couldn't change a lot of people's minds about treating ethnic/racial/religious minorities as 2nd-class citizens. Didn't make it any less the right thing to do in outlawing discrimination against them.

Are you suggesting that nothing of this nature should ever be undertaken until everyone is "ready"?

 

[DarkFury]

You realize he's just trying to force a court battle that will eventually be lost by texas

Texas already knows what it is like getting into a fight you MIGHT lose. They have a monument to it. Sometimes the stand is more important then a win or loss. BECAUSE it is the stand that measures the person.

And we can continue laughing at their stance because they're gonna lose.

ErickTheRed from OkC?

 

[EriktheRed]

You realize he's just trying to force a court battle that will eventually be lost by texas

Texas already knows what it is like getting into a fight you MIGHT lose. They have a monument to it. Sometimes the stand is more important then a win or loss. BECAUSE it is the stand that measures the person.

And we can continue laughing at their stance because they're gonna lose.

ErickTheRed from OkC?

No.

 

[emilynghiem]

guno you cannot legislate changes to people's beliefs by a court ruling.
People will still believe as they do, and defend that by natural laws
in the First and Fourteenth Amendment protecting beliefs EQUALLY.

People's beliefs are not legislated.

??? cnm
Sorry but there are several recent examples where beliefs have been established by court ruling and legislation

A. the ACA mandates requiring all citizens to buy insurance (or else pay taxes that others are exempt from)

this establishes any number of beliefs that are not shared by all citizens but actually VIOLATE beliefs
examples

1. violation of the BELIEF in freedom of choice of health care belonging to people and states, and not giving authority to federal govt without Constitutional Amendment specifically agreeing to grant this to federal authority
vs. the BELIEF in health care as a right through govt

Compare the BELIEFS in the right to health care and the right to life:

The belief that health care is so fundamental it is more important than respecting free choice of paying for health care other ways (It is more important, more expedient for govt to impose a fine and punish people for not buying insurance) is similar to the belief that the right to life Trumps the freedom of choice of the woman NOT to be punished for that choice.

2. Beliefs about discrimination by creed: right to life vs. right to health care

This political belief in "right to health care" is similar to the belief in "right to life" as fundamental duty of govt to protect; yet that belief is struck down as violating separation of church and state.

Thus, so should the "right to health care" be treated the same way, or else it is POLITICAL DISCRIMINATION BY CREED to mandate one belief while penalizing the other

So if people and/or public officials cannot treat beliefs equally, such as right to health care and right to life,
this shows the bias in beliefs that is affecting their ability to make neutral decisions that treat all such beliefs equally.

This, in itself, is a BELIEF. If people BELIEVE prochoice is more constitutional in the right to life case, but right to health care is more constitutional than free choice of health care; then that shows a bias in belief.

3. violation of the belief in no taxation without representation
vs. the belief this is justified as a tax

this law was NOT passed through Congress as a tax
but was passed with the understanding it would be "checked" by courts.

However, at the court level it was argued as a tax in order to pass.
So it was never checked or approved by both Congress and Courts as a tax.
This continuing dispute shows that it does not represent the CONSENT of the public,
whereas taxation requires representation. So it defies and defeats the very spirit of the laws
by imposing a tax on citizens who don't consent to it, and exempting from tax penalties the people who approve it.

B. the rulings against Christian business owners for declining services for gay weddings they don't believe in

1. again, if people and/or govt officials making these decisions cannot view and treat these beliefs equally,
both for and against gay marriage, that in itself shows a bias in belief. Regardless of what issue is at stake, in this case beliefs about homosexuality and gay marriage, the fact these beliefs are not treated equally is a belief in itself, that one is valid and protected by law and the other is not.

2. if businesses are fined for refusing services, that is establishing the belief that "beliefs that homosexuality is against their religion" is wrong or invalid, and not equally protected as the belief that homosexuality is natural.

3. NOTE: In these cases, I would say both sides of both beliefs have an equal legal obligation not to impose on each other or force the other to compromise. I would require that in order for clients/businesses to contract on services, they should sign a waiver agreeing to either mediate any conflict that may arise and resolve disputes b consensus of both parties, or else agree to ABSTAIN from doing business together, refund and cancel any unused services, and avoid any legal action or expenses on them or the public. This would treat beliefs as equal, and fault the CONFLICT between them as causing the imposition, and NOT blame one side more than the other for the conflict. It is a mutual situation if they don't agree; just like you wouldn't blame Muslims and Hindus for having disagreements over pork or beef it their traditions are different; you would expect not to impose on either
one in order to AVOID any conflict, knowing there are certain things they don't believe in. So why not with marriage, just respect the fact people have different beliefs and don't try to enforce or endorse a policy through the state than 'not all people believe in.' Otherwise, that is establishing a religious bias to impose a faith based belief or practice that not all citizens of that state believe in and/or agree to fund as public policy.

 

[Skylar]

You realize he's just trying to force a court battle that will eventually be lost by texas

As a prochoice Democrat, I would support separating party policies similar to religions.
And not abuse govt to impose or establish one over any other, but give all citizens equal access to
the options of their free choice.

Not all views are equally valid constitutionally. Your argument ignores this. The law doesn't.

Hi Skylar give me an example. My intent is to ADDRESS what is constitution or unconstitutional about each belief.

The problem is that you start from a baseline that each belief has equally constitutional validity. And that's necessarily true. SOmetimes its a contest between an unconstitutional position and a very constitutional one.

And as an example, lets take gay marriage. Gays want to get married. Opponents of gay marriage don't want it to happen, insisting that the state should deny them this recognition.

Get specific in how we can acknowledge the validity of both sides.

Give me a specific example,
and I will explain what is constitutional and unconstitutional about.

I did: Gay marriage. You aren't reading what you're replying to.

 

[EriktheRed]

guno you cannot legislate changes to people's beliefs by a court ruling.
People will still believe as they do, and defend that by natural laws
in the First and Fourteenth Amendment protecting beliefs EQUALLY.

People's beliefs are not legislated.

??? cnm
Sorry but there are several recent examples where beliefs have been established by court ruling and legislation

A. the ACA mandates requiring all citizens to buy insurance (or else pay taxes that others are exempt from)

this establishes any number of beliefs that are not shared by all citizens but actually VIOLATE beliefs
examples

1. violation of the BELIEF in freedom of choice of health care belonging to people and states, and not giving authority to federal govt without Constitutional Amendment specifically agreeing to grant this to federal authority
vs. the BELIEF in health care as a right through govt

Compare the BELIEFS in the right to health care and the right to life:

The belief that health care is so fundamental it is more important than respecting free choice of paying for health care other ways (It is more important, more expedient for govt to impose a fine and punish people for not buying insurance) is similar to the belief that the right to life Trumps the freedom of choice of the woman NOT to be punished for that choice.

2. Beliefs about discrimination by creed: right to life vs. right to health care

This political belief in "right to health care" is similar to the belief in "right to life" as fundamental duty of govt to protect; yet that belief is struck down as violating separation of church and state.

Thus, so should the "right to health care" be treated the same way, or else it is POLITICAL DISCRIMINATION BY CREED to mandate one belief while penalizing the other

So if people and/or public officials cannot treat beliefs equally, such as right to health care and right to life,
this shows the bias in beliefs that is affecting their ability to make neutral decisions that treat all such beliefs equally.

This, in itself, is a BELIEF. If people BELIEVE prochoice is more constitutional in the right to life case, but right to health care is more constitutional than free choice of health care; then that shows a bias in belief.

3. violation of the belief in no taxation without representation
vs. the belief this is justified as a tax

this law was NOT passed through Congress as a tax
but was passed with the understanding it would be "checked" by courts.

However, at the court level it was argued as a tax in order to pass.
So it was never checked or approved by both Congress and Courts as a tax.
This continuing dispute shows that it does not represent the CONSENT of the public,
whereas taxation requires representation. So it defies and defeats the very spirit of the laws
by imposing a tax on citizens who don't consent to it, and exempting from tax penalties the people who approve it.

B. the rulings against Christian business owners for declining services for gay weddings they don't believe in

1. again, if people and/or govt officials making these decisions cannot view and treat these beliefs equally,
both for and against gay marriage, that in itself shows a bias in belief. Regardless of what issue is at stake, in this case beliefs about homosexuality and gay marriage, the fact these beliefs are not treated equally is a belief in itself, that one is valid and protected by law and the other is not.

2. if businesses are fined for refusing services, that is establishing the belief that "beliefs that homosexuality is against their religion" is wrong or invalid, and not equally protected as the belief that homosexuality is natural.

3. NOTE: In these cases, I would say both sides of both beliefs have an equal legal obligation not to impose on each other or force the other to compromise. I would require that in order for clients/businesses to contract on services, they should sign a waiver agreeing to either mediate any conflict that may arise and resolve disputes b consensus of both parties, or else agree to ABSTAIN from doing business together, refund and cancel any unused services, and avoid any legal action or expenses on them or the public. This would treat beliefs as equal, and fault the CONFLICT between them as causing the imposition, and NOT blame one side more than the other for the conflict. It is a mutual situation if they don't agree; just like you wouldn't blame Muslims and Hindus for having disagreements over pork or beef it their traditions are different; you would expect not to impose on either
one in order to AVOID any conflict, knowing there are certain things they don't believe in. So why not with marriage, just respect the fact people have different beliefs and don't try to enforce or endorse a policy through the state than 'not all people believe in.' Otherwise, that is establishing a religious bias to impose a faith based belief or practice that not all citizens of that state believe in and/or agree to fund as public policy.

This is totally ludicrous.

 

[emilynghiem]

As a prochoice Democrat, I would support separating party policies similar to religions.
And not abuse govt to impose or establish one over any other, but give all citizens equal access to
the options of their free choice.

Not all views are equally valid constitutionally. Your argument ignores this. The law doesn't.

Hi Skylar give me an example. My intent is to ADDRESS what is constitution or unconstitutional about each belief.

The problem is that you start from a baseline that each belief has equally constitutional validity. And that's necessarily true. Sometimes its a contest between an unconstitutional position and a very constitutional one.

And as an example, lets take gay marriage. Gays want to get married. Opponents of gay marriage don't want it to happen, insisting that the state should deny them this recognition.

Get specific in how we can acknowledge the validity of both sides.

Give me a specific example,
and I will explain what is constitutional and unconstitutional about.

I did: Gay marriage. You aren't reading what you're replying to.

Yes, Skylar
and the same two things apply that make it constitutional or unconstitutional
1. you can practice gay marriage as your personal choice,
this cannot be banned because it is protected under religious freedom as your own personal practice
2. however, the belief in gay marriage (or in traditional marriage also!)
CANNOT be endorsed or institutionalized through the state without CONSENT of the public
since it involves PERSONAL beliefs -- or else it is abuse of govt to violate the establishment clause of the First Amendment and/or the Fourteenth Amendment equal protection clause.

In the past, marriage has been implemented through the state BECAUSE PEOPLE AGREED
Just like people USED to agree to God being mentioned in pledges or on money,
and prayers being in schools or govt sessions. And only when people decided they
DIDN'T agree then it can be struck down as imposing beliefs that not all the public shares or consents to. In the past it was NOT perceived as a biased religious imposition; but once people contested it legally then it had to be removed; and I argue that gay marriage or traditional marriage views are the same way. If these are not consented to, the state cannot endorse them.

If people DON'T all agree on either gay marriage, traditional marriage or whatever,
then these BELIEFS about marriage do not belong in govt.

it is like if people don't agree on Christianity, Buddhism, Islam, Hinduism
then don't specify ANY of these through govt, but just keep them EQUAL under religious freedom and cover them all WITHOUT ENDORSING one over another.

Courts CANNOT go and decide for two warring groups whether to "ban pork to appease Muslims" or "ban beef to appease Hindus." The correct answer would be for people to decide on their own and not abuse govt or courts to force THEIR views on the dissenting group to make a public policy out of either one!

What the courts COULD rule to protect the equal freedom of all sides, is to require mediation and consensus on policy or else remove it from the state altogether. That way ALL people of ALL beliefs are treated equally. And govt is NOT responsible for deciding EITHER WAY:
people either agree on how to write marriage laws policies where everyone and every beliefs are equally included protected and represented; and/or remove any conflicting laws from the state and keep these practiced in private where everyone is treated the same.

 

[guno]

I do remember when the fundamentalist christians pulled this religious freedom crap about interracial marriage in the south

“Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.”

— Judge Leon M. Bazile, January 6, 1959


Gay Marriage Opponents Mimic Objections to Interracial Marriage

Gay Marriage Opponents Mimic Objections to Interracial Marriage Forde-Mazrui Says

 

[guno]

Blast From the Past: States Using 'Religious Freedom' to Justify Segregation

Remember Indiana Governor Mike Pence ? Well we got his ass whipped

Blast From the Past States Using Religious Freedom to Justify Segregation Matt Baume

 

[IsaacNewton]

Maybe Abbott will have all Texans burn themselves like the religious whack is threatening.

Poor Texas, they are so laughably weak. They blather about various things but they can't win.

Its simple now, you have a religious objection to giving someone a marriage license because of your religious beliefs? Don't apply for state or federal jobs.

Christians better figure out where there 'absolutes' will take them. They demanded in lawsuits that prayer is allowed before city council meetings. It was upheld. Only now you have a myriad of religions showing up at city council meetings and giving THEIR prayers. Which now have to be listened to by everyone.

Here you go Christians, this is what you are in store for, because Chrisitianity isn't the exlusive religion anywhere:

 

[emilynghiem]

guno you cannot legislate changes to people's beliefs by a court ruling.
People will still believe as they do, and defend that by natural laws
in the First and Fourteenth Amendment protecting beliefs EQUALLY.

People's beliefs are not legislated.

??? cnm
Sorry but there are several recent examples where beliefs have been established by court ruling and legislation

A. the ACA mandates requiring all citizens to buy insurance (or else pay taxes that others are exempt from)

this establishes any number of beliefs that are not shared by all citizens but actually VIOLATE beliefs
examples

1. violation of the BELIEF in freedom of choice of health care belonging to people and states, and not giving authority to federal govt without Constitutional Amendment specifically agreeing to grant this to federal authority
vs. the BELIEF in health care as a right through govt

Compare the BELIEFS in the right to health care and the right to life:

The belief that health care is so fundamental it is more important than respecting free choice of paying for health care other ways (It is more important, more expedient for govt to impose a fine and punish people for not buying insurance) is similar to the belief that the right to life Trumps the freedom of choice of the woman NOT to be punished for that choice.

2. Beliefs about discrimination by creed: right to life vs. right to health care

This political belief in "right to health care" is similar to the belief in "right to life" as fundamental duty of govt to protect; yet that belief is struck down as violating separation of church and state.

Thus, so should the "right to health care" be treated the same way, or else it is POLITICAL DISCRIMINATION BY CREED to mandate one belief while penalizing the other

So if people and/or public officials cannot treat beliefs equally, such as right to health care and right to life,
this shows the bias in beliefs that is affecting their ability to make neutral decisions that treat all such beliefs equally.

This, in itself, is a BELIEF. If people BELIEVE prochoice is more constitutional in the right to life case, but right to health care is more constitutional than free choice of health care; then that shows a bias in belief.

3. violation of the belief in no taxation without representation
vs. the belief this is justified as a tax

this law was NOT passed through Congress as a tax
but was passed with the understanding it would be "checked" by courts.

However, at the court level it was argued as a tax in order to pass.
So it was never checked or approved by both Congress and Courts as a tax.
This continuing dispute shows that it does not represent the CONSENT of the public,
whereas taxation requires representation. So it defies and defeats the very spirit of the laws
by imposing a tax on citizens who don't consent to it, and exempting from tax penalties the people who approve it.

B. the rulings against Christian business owners for declining services for gay weddings they don't believe in

1. again, if people and/or govt officials making these decisions cannot view and treat these beliefs equally,
both for and against gay marriage, that in itself shows a bias in belief. Regardless of what issue is at stake, in this case beliefs about homosexuality and gay marriage, the fact these beliefs are not treated equally is a belief in itself, that one is valid and protected by law and the other is not.

2. if businesses are fined for refusing services, that is establishing the belief that "beliefs that homosexuality is against their religion" is wrong or invalid, and not equally protected as the belief that homosexuality is natural.

3. NOTE: In these cases, I would say both sides of both beliefs have an equal legal obligation not to impose on each other or force the other to compromise. I would require that in order for clients/businesses to contract on services, they should sign a waiver agreeing to either mediate any conflict that may arise and resolve disputes b consensus of both parties, or else agree to ABSTAIN from doing business together, refund and cancel any unused services, and avoid any legal action or expenses on them or the public. This would treat beliefs as equal, and fault the CONFLICT between them as causing the imposition, and NOT blame one side more than the other for the conflict. It is a mutual situation if they don't agree; just like you wouldn't blame Muslims and Hindus for having disagreements over pork or beef it their traditions are different; you would expect not to impose on either
one in order to AVOID any conflict, knowing there are certain things they don't believe in. So why not with marriage, just respect the fact people have different beliefs and don't try to enforce or endorse a policy through the state than 'not all people believe in.' Otherwise, that is establishing a religious bias to impose a faith based belief or practice that not all citizens of that state believe in and/or agree to fund as public policy.

This is totally ludicrous.

yes and no, I would agree in one sense and disagree in another
1. I find that recognizing and respecting political beliefs is
FUNDAMENTAL to resolving political conflicts dividing the nation and wasting our resources
on problems when we could be investing in solutions all sides agree on by accepting our differences
and quit trying to invalidate or attack each other's views. include them all and we can solve problems effectivefy.

2. yes I do find it ludicrous that people cannot acknowledge and respect beliefs equally

A. If you expect gay marriage beliefs to be respected,
but attack people for their beliefs in traditional marriage, that seems one sided;
and excluding others while demanding to be included which is self-contradictory

The natural Golden Rule is to treat others as you want to be treated,
to enforce for all others the rules you want enforced for you.
So if you want to be included not rejected for your views,
it makes sense to include and not reject the beliefs of others.

B. Especially for the Left it seems self-contradictory
1. to demand prochoice and freedom from govt regulations or penalties
when it comes to the choice of abortion,
but when it comes to the choice of buying insurance now or later,
the new laws impose a financial FINE penalizing people unless they buy insurance
So that seems anti-choice, only exempting insurance as the "only choice for health care"
while penalizing any other investment of resources into providing health care other ways.

2. to demand 'separation of church and state" when it comes to Christianity
(removing references to Christmas, crosses, bibles, prayer, God, anything
that Atheists or secular humanists "don't believe in" and argue is IMPOSING a belief not shared by the public)
but then abuse govt to impose beliefs in
* gay marriage that many people "do not believe in"
* health care as a right through govt (that violates half the nation's beliefs in free choice in health care
without govt fines or mandates)

it seems there is political discrimination going on.

Where beliefs associated with Christianity or Conservative politics are rejected as "separate from govt"
while actively endorsing and legislating secular and political beliefs and not allowing opponents
EQUAL freedom to reject and remove these from public domain if THEY don't believe in these things.

 

[g5000]

If nothing else Texas has the left loons frothing at the mouth

Ironic post is ironic.

 

[emilynghiem]

Blast From the Past: States Using 'Religious Freedom' to Justify Segregation

Remember Indiana Governor Mike Pence ? Well we got his ass whipped

Blast From the Past States Using Religious Freedom to Justify Segregation Matt Baume

Sorry guno but RACE is different from homosexual marriage.
RACE can be proven as genetic and not the choice of the individual.

Homosexual orientation, relations, and whether these are natural or abnormal or can change or not is
FAITH BASED

You cannot compare a FAITH BASED institution
to something that is genetically determined.

However, what I WILL agree with you on:
if people CANNOT agree on marriage laws (whether by their religious beliefs about race, age,
orientation, etc.) then instead of the state taking one side and endorsing it (against the dissenting beliefs
of others) it would be more fair to REMOVE marriage from the state so all views are treated equally.

That would be more constitutionally inclusive and equal:
The courts could order conflicting parties either to resolve their issues, put them aside,
and/or write policies so neutral and objective that all parties AGREE to how they are worded and implemented,
or else REMOVE marriage from the state,
similar to how Baptisms are done differently in different churches or not done at all,
and NOT endorse marriage through the state any more than Baptisms or Funeral Services
should be endorsed or dictated by the state. If these other ceremonies are decided how to conduct privately, why not leave marriage to the individuals to decide?

And keep the civil laws neutral, where this neither establishes nor bans one belief in marriage over another.

 

[Skylar]

Not all views are equally valid constitutionally. Your argument ignores this. The law doesn't.

Hi Skylar give me an example. My intent is to ADDRESS what is constitution or unconstitutional about each belief.

The problem is that you start from a baseline that each belief has equally constitutional validity. And that's necessarily true. Sometimes its a contest between an unconstitutional position and a very constitutional one.

And as an example, lets take gay marriage. Gays want to get married. Opponents of gay marriage don't want it to happen, insisting that the state should deny them this recognition.

Get specific in how we can acknowledge the validity of both sides.

Give me a specific example,
and I will explain what is constitutional and unconstitutional about.

I did: Gay marriage. You aren't reading what you're replying to.

Yes, Skylar
and the same two things apply that make it constitutional or unconstitutional
1. you can practice gay marriage as your personal choice,
this cannot be banned because it is protected under religious freedom as your own personal practice
2. however, the belief in gay marriage (or in traditional marriage also!)
CANNOT be endorsed or institutionalized through the state without CONSENT of the public
since it involves PERSONAL beliefs -- or else it is abuse of govt to violate the establishment clause of the First Amendment and/or the Fourteenth Amendment equal protection clause.

Your premise that laws can't include beliefs is wrong. Every law must include beliefs. There is no way a law can exist without it. There's no ruling that can exist without beliefs. Your central premise is invalid.

As belief as the basis of law is not only consittutionally valid (within the bounds of individual rights, of course), its impossible to create a law without them.