Breaking News: Supreme Court Has Chosen Not To Hear Any Of The 7 Marriage Equality Cases.
- Thread starter Czernobog
- Start date
Desperado
Diamond Member
- Mar 13, 2012
- 41,421
- 16,587
- 2,300
Breaking News: Supreme Court Has Chosen Not To Hear Any Of The 7 Marriage Equality Cases
A very simple way of the Supreme Court saying they want no part of this decision and are shamelessly avoiding their responsibility to make a decision.
A very simple way of the Supreme Court saying they want no part of this decision and are shamelessly avoiding their responsibility to make a decision.
JakeStarkey
Diamond Member
- Aug 10, 2009
- 168,037
- 16,545
- 2,165
- Banned
- #1,583
Fallacy of false comparison, Pop, try again.
Czernobog
Gold Member
- Thread starter
- #1,584
See? You hate the sterile. Not only are you making a distinction between homosexuals, and straight people, but, with this very post, you are pointing out "fertile" couples. Why do you hate the infertile? Why do you hate people who have had hysterectomies? Why do you hate people who have had vasectomies?
JakeStarkey
Diamond Member
- Aug 10, 2009
- 168,037
- 16,545
- 2,165
- Banned
- #1,586
The evangelical busy bodies of the far right think they have a moral right to make others live according to the very small minority standard.
emilynghiem
Constitutionalist / Universalist
1.
Yes, by your secular beliefs you are perfectly in line to set the legal definition on person as you did.
And equally for those with religious beliefs, they have the right to DEFEND their beliefs (as backed
scientifically that the DNA is UNIQUE upon conception if they choose to draw the line there).
I agree that such religious beliefs CANNOT BE IMPOSED through govt,
but likewise neither can the secular beliefs be imposed.
Where I find prolife people agree is on prevention.
Even without being forced by laws, the prolife believe in abstention, adoption, etc. to prevent abortion.
So this shows that preventing abortion can be achieved by FREE CHOICE and does not depend on bans by laws.
None of the prolife people depend on bans on laws to prevent abortion, but are opposed by free choice.
So that is the argument I make for prochoice, and it is hard to argue with because all the prolife people do so by free choice.
I point to their movement as PROOF that abortion can be stopped by education and free choice as they practice themselves.
Arguing about their beliefs will go in circles because that will not change and govt cannot force them to change their beliefs.
Working on prevention respect both prochoice and prolife equally, and does not discriminate by creed.
So that approach is more constitutionally inclusive and agreeable and able to be enforced across the lines.
I respect your views equally as those who believe otherwise,
which I include as protected under the First and Fourteenth Amendment.
If people choose to hear your reasoning and follow it, that's great,
but it is equal to people choosing to hear their beliefs and choosing to follow it or not;
it cannot be endorsed by govt but must remain a free choice since religious beliefs are involved.
When people agree to back down on their religious beliefs, I will back down from defending their equal religious defense.
As long as they believe those things, this has to be worked out by consensus where they choose to change their approach.
Not according my understanding of the Code of Ethics for govt service:
1. people should NOT put partisan agenda before the Constitution (I consider this a violation of First and Fourteenth Amendments by counting political beliefs as a creed)
2. passing laws first then fighting to correct after is NOT the most efficient use of tax dollars and public resources
3. ex: the marriage bans were already unconstitutional and should not have been passed which wasted time and resources
So you can use this system to check overreaching and abuse of govt *in advance*
that doesn't meet Constitutional muster or Constitutional ethics.
Conflict resolution would catch and correct most errors in advance that can be corrected or prevented.
Also, someone recommended a Con amendment that before Congress passes any new laws especially
creating a new authority or system, that a vote must be taken if this is Constitutional or not.
I think that is a good idea.
Not only would it show if there is a consensus or not,
but allow people to show they are opposing it on Constitutional grounds (and I would require them to correct
the fault and not just block for the sake of objecting) and not opposed to the health care or content of the bill.
Ex:
I am not opposed to gay marriage but oppose the imposition of it using laws and language
that excludes other people's beliefs and is not secularly neutral enough to prevent religious issues or conflicts.
I am not opposed to health care reforms and believe in free choice, so if people want single payer
systems they should have a way to set that up for those who agree;
but I oppose imposing a system that denies and punishes equal choices of others to fund
and manage health care systems of their beliefs as well.
So this might help stop the fights over the content
and focus on the Constitutionality of how laws are written or how they can be corrected or separated
to allow equal beliefs to be protected from discrimination or imposition on each other.
Yes, by your secular beliefs you are perfectly in line to set the legal definition on person as you did.
And equally for those with religious beliefs, they have the right to DEFEND their beliefs (as backed
scientifically that the DNA is UNIQUE upon conception if they choose to draw the line there).
I agree that such religious beliefs CANNOT BE IMPOSED through govt,
but likewise neither can the secular beliefs be imposed.
Where I find prolife people agree is on prevention.
Even without being forced by laws, the prolife believe in abstention, adoption, etc. to prevent abortion.
So this shows that preventing abortion can be achieved by FREE CHOICE and does not depend on bans by laws.
None of the prolife people depend on bans on laws to prevent abortion, but are opposed by free choice.
So that is the argument I make for prochoice, and it is hard to argue with because all the prolife people do so by free choice.
I point to their movement as PROOF that abortion can be stopped by education and free choice as they practice themselves.
Arguing about their beliefs will go in circles because that will not change and govt cannot force them to change their beliefs.
Working on prevention respect both prochoice and prolife equally, and does not discriminate by creed.
So that approach is more constitutionally inclusive and agreeable and able to be enforced across the lines.
I respect your views equally as those who believe otherwise,
which I include as protected under the First and Fourteenth Amendment.
If people choose to hear your reasoning and follow it, that's great,
but it is equal to people choosing to hear their beliefs and choosing to follow it or not;
it cannot be endorsed by govt but must remain a free choice since religious beliefs are involved.
When people agree to back down on their religious beliefs, I will back down from defending their equal religious defense.
As long as they believe those things, this has to be worked out by consensus where they choose to change their approach.
Not according my understanding of the Code of Ethics for govt service:
1. people should NOT put partisan agenda before the Constitution (I consider this a violation of First and Fourteenth Amendments by counting political beliefs as a creed)
2. passing laws first then fighting to correct after is NOT the most efficient use of tax dollars and public resources
3. ex: the marriage bans were already unconstitutional and should not have been passed which wasted time and resources
So you can use this system to check overreaching and abuse of govt *in advance*
that doesn't meet Constitutional muster or Constitutional ethics.
Conflict resolution would catch and correct most errors in advance that can be corrected or prevented.
Also, someone recommended a Con amendment that before Congress passes any new laws especially
creating a new authority or system, that a vote must be taken if this is Constitutional or not.
I think that is a good idea.
Not only would it show if there is a consensus or not,
but allow people to show they are opposing it on Constitutional grounds (and I would require them to correct
the fault and not just block for the sake of objecting) and not opposed to the health care or content of the bill.
Ex:
I am not opposed to gay marriage but oppose the imposition of it using laws and language
that excludes other people's beliefs and is not secularly neutral enough to prevent religious issues or conflicts.
I am not opposed to health care reforms and believe in free choice, so if people want single payer
systems they should have a way to set that up for those who agree;
but I oppose imposing a system that denies and punishes equal choices of others to fund
and manage health care systems of their beliefs as well.
So this might help stop the fights over the content
and focus on the Constitutionality of how laws are written or how they can be corrected or separated
to allow equal beliefs to be protected from discrimination or imposition on each other.
emilynghiem
Constitutionalist / Universalist
Ahem isn't this also said of the left by the right,
ie gay marriage, health care mandates, etc that reflect a leftwing bias toward THOSE political beliefs.
Or do you only count ONE side as having beliefs
and the other side doesn't because it is secular?
Like theists are prohibited from imposing their beliefs as a recognized religion
but Atheists are protected because that is secular and not considered a religion.
Are we really going to argue about this?
emilynghiem
Constitutionalist / Universalist
What about the argument that the partnership between male and female
complementary genders is necessary for social development of children.
And the issue is that not all people recognize the same sex partners
as "male/female" spiritual complements (some cases do consider themselves male/female in roles)
CZ if you are going to argue that legally a person's definition should not be changed
to something on a spiritual level in the case of a baby/fetus/right to life,
can you understand that some people cannot change definition of marriage
to recognize same sex couples on a spiritual level?
Some people cannot think that way, it goes against their inherent beliefs.
It may not make logical or legal sense to you and me,
but neither does our inclusion of same sex couples make sense to them.
Can we really expect to use govt to force a change
when it is religiously embedded as part of their beliefs?
NOTE this cannot be compared with race,
because some people are healed of unwanted attractions who change orientation
but I have never heard of someone changing spiritually to another race after going through healing transformation.
orientation is on a spiritual level
but race is physically born and cannot be exactly compared
HenryBHough
Diamond Member
How many of your tax dollars are going toward government research into equality of fertility? That means allowing male/male or female/female couplings to produce offspring. The agenda already calls for inter-species fertility research when the #1 priority above is "mission accomplished".
dcraelin
VIP Member
- Sep 4, 2013
- 2,553
- 136
- 85
all that verbiage and you really didnt clear anything up.
For the ones still running, can they deny adoption to gay couples?.....for the one that closed did it do so in regard to gay marriage?
WorldWatcher
Platinum Member
From my understanding, yes they function and assist with private adoptions.
Nope didn't have to do with same-sex marriage. It had to do with the fact that Catholic Charities received tax payer dollars under contract to function as a governmental entity. When informed they would have to accept homosexuals applicants to continue under contract, they decided not to take the contract. Which was of course was their right to do.
They also choose though that without close the agency instead of functioning as a purely private entity.
>>>>
JakeStarkey
Diamond Member
- Aug 10, 2009
- 168,037
- 16,545
- 2,165
- Banned
- #1,593
You don't get it, do you? State and church are separated, period. Ethics and values, atheist and theist, inform the basis for individual philosophies of government, yes, which can triumph only by the vote or by the court.
No one has any moral obligation to build consensus with those who are wrong in law.
ACA is legal. Marriage equality is legal. No one has any obligation to carve out a "but corner" for those who disagree. That is not how our political system works.
emilynghiem
Constitutionalist / Universalist
Thanks CZ I agree to keep this private and out of govt.
And am even willing to offer the option of writing the state laws to be truly neutral
so that marriage and all the differences and conflicts stay in private hands and decisions and out of courts and legislatures,
except where people AGREE on the language and laws.
if it can be resolved without pushing it that far, that's fine,
but the people in each state have to agree. If any ONE person or group claims
their religious freedom or equal rights is abridged, to me, that is unconstitutional
and whatever is wrong with that law needs to be corrected before it is considered public.
CZ said:
And CZ the problem with public funding is not everyone agrees on public policies of what to fudn with health care:
* stem cell research
* abortion
* birth control
* euthanasia
etc.
You made it clear your beliefs about when does life begin clash with other citizens equally protected
under law who cannot be made to fund things against their beliefs or it runs into Constitutional violations and conflicts
So this is why it will not work without a consensus.
So why not separate by party so people can form a consensus.
As for Singlepayer, why not restrict the network and membership to just those people who agree
to that system. The Democrat party has levels of representation and democratic process on all levels
from local to state and national. Why not use that system to fund their own health care networks,
prove it works first, before selling the idea to others voluntarily participating and choosing to fund it.
CZ said:
Yes i agree we need to come out and resolve this on each issue separately.
and not lump them together in a political war for one party over another.
hash out each issue and agree on solutions and limits on what we support govt to do or not.
I find more Republicans will respect the prochoice position as part of Constitutional freedom
provided this is not abused to promote abortion but more work is done to prevent abortion,
and for prolife people that means 100% prevention.
I agree to seek to enforce that standard of 100% prevention by free choice in order to keep it a legal chioce
and not rely on bans or other regulations that people do not agree with.
If we make the commitment to prevent abortion, that is the real goal.
if we work out each issue in full, we can reduce or prevent deadlocks over legislation that is missing the points.
I think this is VERY necessary to agree what is and what is not agreed upon by the public to be govt role and policy.
The decriminalization of marijuana,
the immigration policies depend on agreeing where to draw lines
and how to prevent infractions without overreaching.
other issues would benefit from recognizing we don't all "draw the lines in the same places,"
so we need to agree where do we focus to solve and prevent problems.
Thanks CZ
if they legalize cloning I'd like to clone you Dante and others
to have a citizens review and go through all these laws people argue over
and hash out where the lines are being crossed and how to untangle them.
We need this process x 1000!
Seriously thanks for your help to go through and sort this out, appreciate it!
JakeStarkey
Diamond Member
- Aug 10, 2009
- 168,037
- 16,545
- 2,165
- Banned
- #1,595
" It had to do with the fact that Catholic Charities received tax payer dollars under contract to function as a governmental entity. When informed they would have to accept homosexuals applicants to continue under contract, they decided not to take the contract. Which was of course was their right to do."
That is why the LDS Social Services got out of the adoption business.
That is why the LDS Social Services got out of the adoption business.
JakeStarkey
Diamond Member
- Aug 10, 2009
- 168,037
- 16,545
- 2,165
- Banned
- #1,596
Emily, I admire you patience and your willingness to look for a conclusion that has a "consensus" that can be accepted by almost all citizens.
Our political system, however, creates winners and losers: always has, always will.
Our political system, however, creates winners and losers: always has, always will.
M14 Shooter
The Light of Truth
In other words... you do not have an effective response to the argument that marriage as a legal iinstitutiion is a privilege created by the state, not a right.
So noted.
emilynghiem
Constitutionalist / Universalist
Like wise our class system has always created slavery.
But there are systems in place, such as microlendingl/business training
and building coops and schools that have wiped out poverty and trafficking one region at a time.
Likewise there are Many Many programs of conflict resolution, restorative justice and restitution/healing
that have saved relations from being lost to one side dominating the other and costing them more.
The only thing missing is taking the local solutions, which can be proven to work on a small scale,
and showing how this can be replicated to cover more cases collectively on the large scale.
In fact, this process is already happening.
For each case above, where one person or community breaks free from poverty and slavery,
this allows others to gain support to grow in that direction so it builds and multiplies.
JS even if we always have inequality, always have two year olds and teenagers
who are not equal to adults and senior mentors,
we can have a school type system set up to accommodate all levels and stages
of social and political development. So each person in each class can move up.
They don't have to waste resources fighting in conflict.
those same resources can be invested in a sustainable system
of growing independent citizenry and communities
just like microlending and fair trade coops have done in poorer countries than our own.
Thanks and I hope your efforts multiply as well as part of this progress!
emilynghiem
Constitutionalist / Universalist
Hey M14 Shooter
can we agree to address both issues
1. both the civil marriage institutions and process through govt
2. the spiritual beliefs about marriage and partnerships that is part of religious freedom
and not mandated or regulated by govt
Can we agree to respect #2 as inherent as part of human nature, where people cannot expect to use govt to
change or impose on people's private beliefs,
and then try to address how to deal with laws under #1
so it doesn't impose on #2 for any side or beliefs but all are respected equally without infringement one way or another
M14 Shooter
The Light of Truth
Not sure how any of this relates to the point in question.
Do you know what that point is?
Similar threads
New Topics
-
Trump, like many great Presidents, has provided words to inspire- Started by ElmerMudd
- Replies: 1
-
-
-
-
Latest Discussions
-
"The wealthiest in this country do not pay their fair share." [Bernie Sanders]- Latest: SassyIrishLass
-
-
-
