Gay marriage is not a constitutional right

[emilynghiem]

"...the First Amendment the govt is not authorized to get involved in contests between beliefs."

Nonsense - the issue has nothing to do with the First Amendment, no government is seeking to restrict or deny anyone's beliefs.

The 14th Amendment jurisprudence that invalidated state laws denying same-sex couples access to marriage laws applies solely to government, not to private persons or organizations, such as churches.

Both individuals and religious entities are at complete liberty to discriminate against same-sex couples in the context of religious dogma, and private citizens are at complete liberty to hate gay Americans with impunity, to believe that homosexuality is 'immoral,' and to freely express their hostility toward gay Americans, free from unwarranted interference by any government.

Dear C_Clayton_Jones and Skylar
while I AGREE with you that bans on same sex marriage
getting struck down as unconstitutional

I DISAGREE with your continued assertion that
state sanctioning and endorsing same sex marriage
isn't ALSO crossing the line and involving the
state in matters of private personal spiritual religious and political beliefs,
but I argue since the people in states DON'T agree yet on the polices
and how they are written, then no such laws should be endorsed or
enforced as public policy UNTIL and UNLESS the affected public agrees and consents.

Nonsense. If the public wants to pass a law that violates rights, the rights of the individual trumps that authority.

And bans on same sex marriage violated the right to marry and equal protection restrictions on state laws. Thus, they had no authority.

Universal consent is not necessary for a law to be enacted. Nor for a law to be repealed. Nor has it ever been.

They need to go back to the drawing board
and revise policies and programs so people DO agree
that it me ets Constitutional standards and ethics,
neither establishing or denying beliefs,
endorsing or excluding, discriminating or penalizing etc.

There is no constitutional standard about the 'establishment or denial of beliefs'.

You've made that up. And your imagination creates no constitutional crisis.

For a law to have authority of the people,
consent is necessary.

Consent by a relevant majority. Not universal consent. And the constitution is the highest law in the land. If a law passed by a given state violate this highest law, the constitution is given preference over the state law that violates it.

This is constitution 101. The relevant majority has every authority to impose its will on the condition that it doesn't violate rights.
When rights are violated, the laws of the relevant majority are invalid.

Your insistence on universal consent has nothing to do with our laws, nor ever has. We have always used the relevant majority as the basis of consent of the governed. Your views aren't reflected in our nation's history, our laws or our constitution.

You simply don't understand how our republic works, how democracy works, or the most fundamental tenets of governance. Universal consent and total agreement by the people is not, nor has ever been a requirement for ANY law.

Once again, you've imagined it.

Thus they push until laws change because they do not agree
where the govt goes against their beliefs. Thus the process
of petitioning continues until grievances are redressed.

The redress of greviances is simply a case being heard and adjudicated. You don't understand what such redress even is. You don't follow the meaning of the terms you're trying to use.

And its this fundamental misunderstanding of basic terms that is the heart of your profound misunderstanding on how democracy works.

It has NEVER been about universal consent. It has NEVER been about absolute consensus. There have ALWAYS been disagreements. And some beliefs win while others lose. With the will of the relevant majority expressed in our law as long as those laws don't violate individual rights.

I AGREE with you we have never fully realized consensus, "equal justice under law"
and full and equal representation and protection of all interests.

But that IS the spirit of what our laws PRESCRIBE and ASPIRE to.

* Equal Justice Under Law
I agree the current system is bought out by the bigger bully
with more resources, and this isn't equal access to justice much less protection

I am arguing to defend the standards that WOULD
FULFILL "EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW"

* Equal protections under law
Again, we don't have this yet.

That's why I am arguing to defend standards and principles
CONSISTENTLY THAT WOULD ALLOW EQUAL PROTECTIONS OF ALL PEOPLE'S CONSENT AND INTEREST

* our laws in the Bill of Rights (and Code of Ethics for Govt Service)
ALREADY PRESCRIBE THE STANDARDS that if we followed
would ensure all people are treated equally
See where I posted them here: http://www.ethics-commission.net

Just because we have never practiced or established this consistently
doesn't mean we shouldn't respect what are laws ALREADY claim to protect!

The problem is we aren't enforcing them equally.

We allow bigger bullies to get away with wrongs,
and don't hold them to correct those. So this pattern keeps happening.

But if you look at the pattern of behavior in RESPONDING to
these ongoing wrongs, you will always see people
* protesting or objecting
* petitioning (in one form or another)
* demanding restitution or "redress of grievances"

So that is an inherent part of the political process also.

Until people's consent is respected, this cycle will continue
to force reforms and corrections. That's justice at work.
As they say "no justice, no peace"

The process continues until objections/grievances are resolved.

 

[Skylar]

"...the First Amendment the govt is not authorized to get involved in contests between beliefs."

Nonsense - the issue has nothing to do with the First Amendment, no government is seeking to restrict or deny anyone's beliefs.

The 14th Amendment jurisprudence that invalidated state laws denying same-sex couples access to marriage laws applies solely to government, not to private persons or organizations, such as churches.

Both individuals and religious entities are at complete liberty to discriminate against same-sex couples in the context of religious dogma, and private citizens are at complete liberty to hate gay Americans with impunity, to believe that homosexuality is 'immoral,' and to freely express their hostility toward gay Americans, free from unwarranted interference by any government.

Dear C_Clayton_Jones and Skylar
while I AGREE with you that bans on same sex marriage
getting struck down as unconstitutional

I DISAGREE with your continued assertion that
state sanctioning and endorsing same sex marriage
isn't ALSO crossing the line and involving the
state in matters of private personal spiritual religious and political beliefs,
but I argue since the people in states DON'T agree yet on the polices
and how they are written, then no such laws should be endorsed or
enforced as public policy UNTIL and UNLESS the affected public agrees and consents.

Nonsense. If the public wants to pass a law that violates rights, the rights of the individual trumps that authority.

And bans on same sex marriage violated the right to marry and equal protection restrictions on state laws. Thus, they had no authority.

Universal consent is not necessary for a law to be enacted. Nor for a law to be repealed. Nor has it ever been.

They need to go back to the drawing board
and revise policies and programs so people DO agree
that it me ets Constitutional standards and ethics,
neither establishing or denying beliefs,
endorsing or excluding, discriminating or penalizing etc.

There is no constitutional standard about the 'establishment or denial of beliefs'.

You've made that up. And your imagination creates no constitutional crisis.

For a law to have authority of the people,
consent is necessary.

Consent by a relevant majority. Not universal consent. And the constitution is the highest law in the land. If a law passed by a given state violate this highest law, the constitution is given preference over the state law that violates it.

This is constitution 101. The relevant majority has every authority to impose its will on the condition that it doesn't violate rights.
When rights are violated, the laws of the relevant majority are invalid.

Your insistence on universal consent has nothing to do with our laws, nor ever has. We have always used the relevant majority as the basis of consent of the governed. Your views aren't reflected in our nation's history, our laws or our constitution.

You simply don't understand how our republic works, how democracy works, or the most fundamental tenets of governance. Universal consent and total agreement by the people is not, nor has ever been a requirement for ANY law.

Once again, you've imagined it.

Thus they push until laws change because they do not agree
where the govt goes against their beliefs. Thus the process
of petitioning continues until grievances are redressed.

The redress of greviances is simply a case being heard and adjudicated. You don't understand what such redress even is. You don't follow the meaning of the terms you're trying to use.

And its this fundamental misunderstanding of basic terms that is the heart of your profound misunderstanding on how democracy works.

It has NEVER been about universal consent. It has NEVER been about absolute consensus. There have ALWAYS been disagreements. And some beliefs win while others lose. With the will of the relevant majority expressed in our law as long as those laws don't violate individual rights.

I AGREE with you we have never fully realized consensus, "equal justice under law"
and full and equal representation and protection of all interests.

Then you just abandoned your own argument. As you were just arguing universal consent a few moments ago.

There is no obligation under our constitution that our law reflect ALL beliefs equally. Nor has there ever been. You've made that up.

You're literally arguing your imagination. Nothing you're arguing has ever been part of our law, our constitution, or our nation's history. And thus has exactly nothing to do with the constitutionality of any law or ruling.

But that IS the spirit of what our laws PRESCRIBE and ASPIRE to.

* Equal Justice Under Law
I agree the current system is bought out by the bigger bully
with more resources, and this isn't equal access to justice much less protection

I am arguing to defend the standards that WOULD
FULFILL "EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW"

* Equal protections under law
Again, we don't have this yet.

Yes, we do. When same sex couples are allowed to marry, they are treated the same as opposite sex couples. They are granted equal protection by the law, as the law treats them the same. No one's rights are being violated by allowing same sex couples to marry.

When we *restrict* same sex couples from gaining access to marriage, they are denied equal protection. They have a right to marry....and that right is denied them under our law. Thus, the law is invalid.

Denying same sex couples rights is not the same thing as recognizing those rights. And yet in defiance of all reason, you equate them.

Opposites are not equals.

 

[emilynghiem]

1. The First Amendment was written literally for Congress
and states that
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment
of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

which has been paraphrased by the left who call it
"separation of church and state"
which means the govt is not to be used to endorse or impose "religious beliefs"

And where does it say a thing about beliefs? If I believe there should be same sex marriage......that's not 'establishing religion'. Or inhibiting anyone else's right to practice it.

Again, your mandate that all rights must be represented equally doesn't exist in our laws, our constitution, or our nation's history. Beliefs compete. And some lose. Those that lose are no represented in our laws. Those that win are.

And your beliefs grant you no authority to abrogate anyone else's rights.

Q:
do you and I agree on the MEANING of the First Amendment?

Of course not. As you've equated any belief with religion. The 1st amendment never so much as mentions beliefs. Let alone forbids laws based on them.

You've literally imagined your entire premise. And the 1st amendment makes no mention of anything you've argued. Not one thing.

do we agree that Congress is not supposed to pass laws
that either "establish OR prohibit" beliefs (you can say just
religious beliefs if you want to take this literally; but to avoid
discrimination I interpret it to ALL beliefs so everyone's rights are
included and defended equally, regardless if they affiliate or identify with a religion or not.)

No, we do not agree. As beliefs aren't even mentioned in the constitution. I can hold a belief that we should have speeding laws. Per your wildly bizarre interpretation of the 1st amendment, that somehow violates the separation of church and state.

Back in reality, there's no such violation. As a belief doesn't necessarily establish any religion. You merely calling anything you disagree with 'religion' doesn't magically make it so.

All you've done is switch to a useless false equivalency fallacy....insisting that any belief on any topic is religion.

Um, no. Its not.

if that's all we disagree on -- whether this applies to ALL beliefs
or just established religions, that is normal to interpret the law as only applying to religious beliefs
due to established precedent and case history etc.)

2. the Fourteenth Amendment
expanded to the STATES
the protection of rights of people under state jurisdiction

And recognizing same sex marraige violates no rights. While denying same sex marriage violates rights. They're literal opposites.

Opposites are not 'equal'. One would think this was obvious.

Again, you bizarrely insist that beliefs and right are the same thing. And you're obviously wrong.

RE: Speeding laws
These are secular issues
and we all agree there are no religious beliefs involved there.

So if YOU have a religiously based problem with anything....suddenly someone *else's* belief about it is religion?

That's ludicrous.

If I support a woman's right to choose....and you believe that abortion is a mortal sin based on your religion....then my belief about a woman's right to choose suddenly becomes religious?

Um, nope.

Nor does your belief grant you the authority to impose your will on another woman's body. Her rights trump your beliefs regarding the use of her own body. Your beliefs grant you no authority. Nor is there any constitutional crisis as there is no constitutional restriction about 'establishing or denying beliefs'.

You made that up. And your imagination has no constitutional relevance.

No, it doesn't 'become' religious, randomly or suddenly.
Beliefs are already there, inherently, before the issues ever came up.

The constitution offers no restriction on the 'establishment or denial of beliefs'. You've made that up. The 1st amendment makes zero mention of it. No amendment does.

And your imagination has no constitutional relevance. Eliminating your entire argument.

I spelled out a list of SPECIFIC areas I have found
where people have beliefs they cannot help and will fight to defend because it is inherent in their identity.

None of which has a thing to do with religion. As I've addressed your 'specific area' directly: You believe that abortion is a religious sin. I think a woman should have the right to control her own body.

Q: What amendment in the constitution restrictions the establishment of the right to abortion based on the belief that a woman should have the right to control her own body?

A: There is none.

That YOU believe in a religious basis of abortion restriction has zero constitutional or rational relevance to another woman's right to have an abortion. There is no 1st amendment violation, as the 1st amendment doesn't even mention the 'establishment or denial of beliefs'. Let alone forbid either.

You've made that up. And your imagination is constitutionally irrelevant.

The first step is to recognize they have the right to their
beliefs and to exercise these, and the next steps involve
mastering the communicating and relations to resolve
any conflicts in the way of equal exercise protection and inclusion;
and the last steps involve the actual implementation and how
to work and coordinate with all groups and models, so all people maximize and realize this equal fulfillment and manifestation of all our respective parts we play in the process of establishing peace and justice in a sustainable society.

Nope. You having a right to your beliefs doesn't mean that you have a right for those beliefs to be equally represented in our laws.

If you believe that its a religious sin for interracial couples to marry, there is zero constitutional obligation that the law reflect your views equally with those who believe they should be able to marry inter-racially.

Your belief does not trump other people's rights.

And when a law violates rights, the law is invalid.

1. I was paraphrasing since I posted the First Amendment verbatim as
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment
of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

So I was EXPLAINING the two parts
on "respecting an establishment of religion" as meaning ESTABLISHING or ENDORSING
and on not "prohibiting the free exercise" as meaning not DENYING OR BANNING
as in gay marriage being banned

Skylar if you are SO LITERAL
do you mean to tell me the First or the Fourteenth Amendment
has to SPECIFICALLY STATE "not to ban same sex marriage"
before it applies to that?

Isn't there something called INTERPRETATION
that allows "free exercise of religion" to INCLUDE
the "exercise of beliefs in same sex marriage"

or does the law have to say that VERBATIM to apply?

is that what's wrong with liberal minds that take laws LITERALLY?
so if they don't say that IN WRITING
you don't feel you have equal protection under the First Amendment already.
And to you it is legally necessary to have legislation to spell out
each and every application?

Is that why we aren't communicating?
Because to you it has to be that literal?


2. RE:
Your belief does not trump other people's rights.
And when a law violates rights, the law is invalid

^ So when people argue this about your belief that "marriage is a right."
and any law you write for govt to endorse
that violates the First Amendment, Fourteenth or Tenth
is invalid?

does this same statement apply to you when
it's your beliefs that are crossing the line into govt jurisdiction?
Skylar

 

[Skylar]

And where does it say a thing about beliefs? If I believe there should be same sex marriage......that's not 'establishing religion'. Or inhibiting anyone else's right to practice it.

Again, your mandate that all rights must be represented equally doesn't exist in our laws, our constitution, or our nation's history. Beliefs compete. And some lose. Those that lose are no represented in our laws. Those that win are.

And your beliefs grant you no authority to abrogate anyone else's rights.

Of course not. As you've equated any belief with religion. The 1st amendment never so much as mentions beliefs. Let alone forbids laws based on them.

You've literally imagined your entire premise. And the 1st amendment makes no mention of anything you've argued. Not one thing.

No, we do not agree. As beliefs aren't even mentioned in the constitution. I can hold a belief that we should have speeding laws. Per your wildly bizarre interpretation of the 1st amendment, that somehow violates the separation of church and state.

Back in reality, there's no such violation. As a belief doesn't necessarily establish any religion. You merely calling anything you disagree with 'religion' doesn't magically make it so.

All you've done is switch to a useless false equivalency fallacy....insisting that any belief on any topic is religion.

Um, no. Its not.

And recognizing same sex marraige violates no rights. While denying same sex marriage violates rights. They're literal opposites.

Opposites are not 'equal'. One would think this was obvious.

Again, you bizarrely insist that beliefs and right are the same thing. And you're obviously wrong.

RE: Speeding laws
These are secular issues
and we all agree there are no religious beliefs involved there.

So if YOU have a religiously based problem with anything....suddenly someone *else's* belief about it is religion?

That's ludicrous.

If I support a woman's right to choose....and you believe that abortion is a mortal sin based on your religion....then my belief about a woman's right to choose suddenly becomes religious?

Um, nope.

Nor does your belief grant you the authority to impose your will on another woman's body. Her rights trump your beliefs regarding the use of her own body. Your beliefs grant you no authority. Nor is there any constitutional crisis as there is no constitutional restriction about 'establishing or denying beliefs'.

You made that up. And your imagination has no constitutional relevance.

No, it doesn't 'become' religious, randomly or suddenly.
Beliefs are already there, inherently, before the issues ever came up.

The constitution offers no restriction on the 'establishment or denial of beliefs'. You've made that up. The 1st amendment makes zero mention of it. No amendment does.

And your imagination has no constitutional relevance. Eliminating your entire argument.

I spelled out a list of SPECIFIC areas I have found
where people have beliefs they cannot help and will fight to defend because it is inherent in their identity.

None of which has a thing to do with religion. As I've addressed your 'specific area' directly: You believe that abortion is a religious sin. I think a woman should have the right to control her own body.

Q: What amendment in the constitution restrictions the establishment of the right to abortion based on the belief that a woman should have the right to control her own body?

A: There is none.

That YOU believe in a religious basis of abortion restriction has zero constitutional or rational relevance to another woman's right to have an abortion. There is no 1st amendment violation, as the 1st amendment doesn't even mention the 'establishment or denial of beliefs'. Let alone forbid either.

You've made that up. And your imagination is constitutionally irrelevant.

The first step is to recognize they have the right to their
beliefs and to exercise these, and the next steps involve
mastering the communicating and relations to resolve
any conflicts in the way of equal exercise protection and inclusion;
and the last steps involve the actual implementation and how
to work and coordinate with all groups and models, so all people maximize and realize this equal fulfillment and manifestation of all our respective parts we play in the process of establishing peace and justice in a sustainable society.

Nope. You having a right to your beliefs doesn't mean that you have a right for those beliefs to be equally represented in our laws.

If you believe that its a religious sin for interracial couples to marry, there is zero constitutional obligation that the law reflect your views equally with those who believe they should be able to marry inter-racially.

Your belief does not trump other people's rights.

And when a law violates rights, the law is invalid.

1. I was paraphrasing since I posted the First Amendment verbatim as
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment
of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

And by 'paraphrasing' you mean making shit up that the 1st amendment never even mentions, let alone forbids?

There is zero mention in the 1st amendment about prohibiting the establishment or denial of beliefs. You've made that up. And your imagination is constitutionally irrelevant.

You're kinda stuck here, Emily. As your entire argument is based on a premise that the 1st amendment never even mentions.

Isn't there something called INTERPRETATION
that allows "free exercise of religion" to INCLUDE
the "exercise of beliefs in same sex marriage"

or does the law have to say that VERBATIM to apply?

Free excercise of religion means that you can practice and believe as you wish. It doesn't mean that you get to violate OTHER people's rights.

If you were REQUIRED to enter into a gay marriage against your religion, that would be a violation of free excercise of religion. But you're not. If you don't believe in gay marriage, you don't have to enter into one.

Yet somehow you've morphed 'free exercise' into you having the power to deny OTHER people the right to marry.....based on your 'belief'. And your belief confers no such authority.

Nor does denying you the ability to deny other people rights deny you of any right yourself.

2. RE:
Your belief does not trump other people's rights.
And when a law violates rights, the law is invalid

^ So when people argue this about your belief that "marriage is a right."
and any law you write for govt to endorse
that violates the First Amendment, Fourteenth or Tenth
is invalid?

Feel free to have those issues adjudicated by raising them in court to be judged on the merits of your argument. You'll lose, as they're nonsense arguments. But redress of grievances is simply the ability to bring your case to the law to be adjudicated without punishment from the government.

You won't be punished. You'll be laughed out of court for pseudo-legal nonsense. But you won't be punished. And thus, you'll have full redress of grievances.

Remember.....the mere EXISTENCE of a belief does not mean that it is legally or constitutionally valid. Or that it has the slightest relevance to either the constitution or the law. You keep confusing anything you can possibly imagine with a constitutional crisis.

And they aren't the same thing.

 

[emilynghiem]

Dear C_Clayton_Jones and Skylar
while I AGREE with you that bans on same sex marriage
getting struck down as unconstitutional

I DISAGREE with your continued assertion that
state sanctioning and endorsing same sex marriage
isn't ALSO crossing the line and involving the
state in matters of private personal spiritual religious and political beliefs,
but I argue since the people in states DON'T agree yet on the polices
and how they are written, then no such laws should be endorsed or
enforced as public policy UNTIL and UNLESS the affected public agrees and consents.

Nonsense. If the public wants to pass a law that violates rights, the rights of the individual trumps that authority.

And bans on same sex marriage violated the right to marry and equal protection restrictions on state laws. Thus, they had no authority.

Universal consent is not necessary for a law to be enacted. Nor for a law to be repealed. Nor has it ever been.

They need to go back to the drawing board
and revise policies and programs so people DO agree
that it me ets Constitutional standards and ethics,
neither establishing or denying beliefs,
endorsing or excluding, discriminating or penalizing etc.

There is no constitutional standard about the 'establishment or denial of beliefs'.

You've made that up. And your imagination creates no constitutional crisis.

For a law to have authority of the people,
consent is necessary.

Consent by a relevant majority. Not universal consent. And the constitution is the highest law in the land. If a law passed by a given state violate this highest law, the constitution is given preference over the state law that violates it.

This is constitution 101. The relevant majority has every authority to impose its will on the condition that it doesn't violate rights.
When rights are violated, the laws of the relevant majority are invalid.

Your insistence on universal consent has nothing to do with our laws, nor ever has. We have always used the relevant majority as the basis of consent of the governed. Your views aren't reflected in our nation's history, our laws or our constitution.

You simply don't understand how our republic works, how democracy works, or the most fundamental tenets of governance. Universal consent and total agreement by the people is not, nor has ever been a requirement for ANY law.

Once again, you've imagined it.

Thus they push until laws change because they do not agree
where the govt goes against their beliefs. Thus the process
of petitioning continues until grievances are redressed.

The redress of greviances is simply a case being heard and adjudicated. You don't understand what such redress even is. You don't follow the meaning of the terms you're trying to use.

And its this fundamental misunderstanding of basic terms that is the heart of your profound misunderstanding on how democracy works.

It has NEVER been about universal consent. It has NEVER been about absolute consensus. There have ALWAYS been disagreements. And some beliefs win while others lose. With the will of the relevant majority expressed in our law as long as those laws don't violate individual rights.

I AGREE with you we have never fully realized consensus, "equal justice under law"
and full and equal representation and protection of all interests.

Then you just abandoned your own argument. As you were just arguing universal consent a few moments ago.

There is no obligation under our constitution that our law reflect ALL beliefs equally. Nor has there ever been. You've made that up.

You're literally arguing your imagination. Nothing you're arguing has ever been part of our law, our constitution, or our nation's history. And thus has exactly nothing to do with the constitutionality of any law or ruling.

But that IS the spirit of what our laws PRESCRIBE and ASPIRE to.

* Equal Justice Under Law
I agree the current system is bought out by the bigger bully
with more resources, and this isn't equal access to justice much less protection

I am arguing to defend the standards that WOULD
FULFILL "EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW"

* Equal protections under law
Again, we don't have this yet.

Yes, we do. When same sex couples are allowed to marry, they are treated the same as opposite sex couples. They are granted equal protection by the law, as the law treats them the same. No one's rights are being violated by allowing same sex couples to marry.

When we *restrict* same sex couples from gaining access to marriage, they are denied equal protection. They have a right to marry....and that right is denied them under our law. Thus, the law is invalid.

Denying same sex couples rights is not the same thing as recognizing those rights. And yet in defiance of all reason, you equate them.

Opposites are not equals.

Skylar I didn't say that
* I said once ONE set of beliefs gets represented in govt, then the others would have to be also
* or else REMOVE them all
So I agree with you the solution IS to remove references to beliefs from govt

Same with what I MEAN about universal or neutral language in the laws.

My whole point is that when it comes to beliefs,
people need to agree by free choice and can't be coerced.

So the FIRST step is to reach an AGREEMENT

then, naturally the laws will follow
so these will either include neutral/universal language that all people AGRE E to
OR people will AGREE to remove the references to beliefs from govt
OR people will AGREE to include all references in govt
(such as the rules in some cities that don't ban nativity scenes but allow
ANY GROUP to put up their displays equally. or policies that don't ban prayers
or religious references, but allow ANY GROUP to participate in same)

I am talking about the LARGER process of
resolving conflicts and forming a consensus first,
THEN writing/revising laws to REFLECT that agreement.

this process DOES NOT WORK by trying to dictate backwards.
I am NOT SAYING to take the end product
that naturally RESULTS once agreements/consensus are reached
"and try to require that" up front as you seem to be taking this as.

That is backwards from how the consensus process works.

I am not trying to dictate it based on the
DESCRIPTIONS and EXPLANATIONS
that you seem to be taking too LITERALLY.

Do you understand that is why we are talking past each other?

I am trying to describe what the consensus process ends up looking like
and what the standards are that end up being met. This is a DESCRIPTION.

You keep taking everything I describe
and object that the laws we have don't say those things literally.

Those laws are general.

When applied to each and every case, the end results are going
to be specific to each case. They are not going to be literally what
the First Amendment says, the Fourteenth, etc.

In general, when people follow the spirit of the laws
we don't have these conflicts and arguments.
We focus on the solutions we all agree are workable
and we write THOSE up.

I am talking about the GENERAL process
where people resolve conflicts directly with each other.

Is this too far a stretch for you to see that
the "democratic process" and process
of "redressing grievances" goes beyond just the govt
but it's the PEOPLE ourselves ad dressing
conflicts, grievances, objections, wrongs and corrections
directly with each other?

is that too far a leap since you read these laws so literally?

 

[Skylar]

Nonsense. If the public wants to pass a law that violates rights, the rights of the individual trumps that authority.

And bans on same sex marriage violated the right to marry and equal protection restrictions on state laws. Thus, they had no authority.

Universal consent is not necessary for a law to be enacted. Nor for a law to be repealed. Nor has it ever been.

There is no constitutional standard about the 'establishment or denial of beliefs'.

You've made that up. And your imagination creates no constitutional crisis.

For a law to have authority of the people,
consent is necessary.

Consent by a relevant majority. Not universal consent. And the constitution is the highest law in the land. If a law passed by a given state violate this highest law, the constitution is given preference over the state law that violates it.

This is constitution 101. The relevant majority has every authority to impose its will on the condition that it doesn't violate rights.
When rights are violated, the laws of the relevant majority are invalid.

Your insistence on universal consent has nothing to do with our laws, nor ever has. We have always used the relevant majority as the basis of consent of the governed. Your views aren't reflected in our nation's history, our laws or our constitution.

You simply don't understand how our republic works, how democracy works, or the most fundamental tenets of governance. Universal consent and total agreement by the people is not, nor has ever been a requirement for ANY law.

Once again, you've imagined it.

Thus they push until laws change because they do not agree
where the govt goes against their beliefs. Thus the process
of petitioning continues until grievances are redressed.

The redress of greviances is simply a case being heard and adjudicated. You don't understand what such redress even is. You don't follow the meaning of the terms you're trying to use.

And its this fundamental misunderstanding of basic terms that is the heart of your profound misunderstanding on how democracy works.

It has NEVER been about universal consent. It has NEVER been about absolute consensus. There have ALWAYS been disagreements. And some beliefs win while others lose. With the will of the relevant majority expressed in our law as long as those laws don't violate individual rights.

I AGREE with you we have never fully realized consensus, "equal justice under law"
and full and equal representation and protection of all interests.

Then you just abandoned your own argument. As you were just arguing universal consent a few moments ago.

There is no obligation under our constitution that our law reflect ALL beliefs equally. Nor has there ever been. You've made that up.

You're literally arguing your imagination. Nothing you're arguing has ever been part of our law, our constitution, or our nation's history. And thus has exactly nothing to do with the constitutionality of any law or ruling.

But that IS the spirit of what our laws PRESCRIBE and ASPIRE to.

* Equal Justice Under Law
I agree the current system is bought out by the bigger bully
with more resources, and this isn't equal access to justice much less protection

I am arguing to defend the standards that WOULD
FULFILL "EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW"

* Equal protections under law
Again, we don't have this yet.

Yes, we do. When same sex couples are allowed to marry, they are treated the same as opposite sex couples. They are granted equal protection by the law, as the law treats them the same. No one's rights are being violated by allowing same sex couples to marry.

When we *restrict* same sex couples from gaining access to marriage, they are denied equal protection. They have a right to marry....and that right is denied them under our law. Thus, the law is invalid.

Denying same sex couples rights is not the same thing as recognizing those rights. And yet in defiance of all reason, you equate them.

Opposites are not equals.

Skylar I didn't say that
* I said once ONE set of beliefs gets represented in govt, then the others would have to be also

Nope. There's no such requirement. The entire process of elections is to promote a particular set of beliefs over another. The federalists and the anti-federalists went head to head. The Anti-federalists lost. Thus, the constitution did not reflect their beliefs.

And we've followed the same pattern of competing beliefs ever since. That's how our republic works. That's how democracy works.

Your proposal is irrelevant to our republic, democracy, our history, laws or constitution. As there has never been a mandate that all beliefs be represented equally.

You imagined it.

* or else REMOVE them all
So I agree with you the solution IS to remove references to beliefs from govt

No you don't. As I've never argued that. I've argued the exact opposite....that the relevant majority has EVERY authority to impose its will through law unless such laws violate rights.

So we don't agree. And I've told you as much. And you've ignored what I've said....and replaced it with your imagination. Exactly as you've done with the 1st amendment.

And its just as irrelevant to me as its irrelevant to the constitution when you do it.

 

[emilynghiem]

OK lets start here:
RE: Free excercise of religion means that you can practice and believe as you wish. It doesn't mean that you get to violate OTHER people's rights.

If you were REQUIRED to enter into a gay marriage against your religion, that would be a violation of free excercise of religion. But you're not. If you don't believe in gay marriage, you don't have to enter into one.

Yet somehow you've morphed 'free exercise' into you having the power to deny OTHER people the right to marry.....based on your 'belief'. And your belief confers no such authority.

Nor does denying you the ability to deny other people rights deny you of any right yourself.
==================

^ AGREE ^ I just apply this consistently to all sides (while you only apply this to some)
including my own beliefs which I don't go around "mandating through govt" but respect free choice and consent to accept or not.
I respect the fact people like you object, but you don't respect the fact that people object to gay marriage rights endorsed through govt.
so you don't apply this concept back to your own beliefs, only to people you disagree with.

I agree that the
* bans excluding gay marriage and beliefs/exercise thereof violated equal constitutional rights and protections
AND I ALSO ADD THAT
* establishing gay marriage beliefs through govt
was DISCRIMINATORY because Christian beliefs about prayer/God etc are not allowed to be endorsed by govt

this is DISCRIMINATION
where one set of beliefs can be ENDORSED by govt as standard policy that all people must accept as included in public institutions
but another set is still being REMOVED based on principle

So by your quotes:
RE: Free excercise of religion means that you can practice and believe as you wish. It doesn't mean that you get to violate OTHER people's rights.

If you were REQUIRED to enter into a gay marriage against your religion, that would be a violation of free excercise of religion. But you're not. If you don't believe in gay marriage, you don't have to enter into one.

Yet somehow you've morphed 'free exercise' into you having the power to deny OTHER people the right to marry.....based on your 'belief'. And your belief confers no such authority.

Nor does denying you the ability to deny other people rights deny you of any right yourself.

this same law applies to gay marriage:
you have the right to exercise your beliefs
but NOT THE RIGHT TO ENDORSE YOUR BELIEFS THROUGH GOVT
WHILE OTHER PEOPLE'S BELIEFS ARE BARRED FROM ENDORSEMENT

I am arguing to respect the beliefs of all people,
while you exclude the beliefs/objections of dissenters, which you dismiss as invalid
since they don't meet the requirements you made up of "stripping someone of rights" <-- which isn't in the First Amendment either

So I argue that my interpretation applies equally to the beliefs of you and others on both sides.
Where you BOTH ne ed protection from infringement by the other.

While you only recognize where the other side infringes on yours and YOU ne ed protection,
but fail to enforce equal protection for the beliefs of the other side you dismiss as invalid and unequal to yours.

NOTE: WHERE IN THE FIRST AMENDMENT
does it require that someone has to be FORCED into a belief
in order for Congress/govt to be barred from establishing that belief?

As I pointed out before,
Atheists have sued to remove crosses on public property
that weren't "forcing them" in any way.
It was argued based on PRINCIPLE of public institutions
NOT endorsing or establishing a faith based belief or religious reference.

Do you acknowledge it is not a legal requirement to be forced
in order to remove a reference to God or other faith based
references people don't believe in?

Do we agree this isn't a legal requirement or definition?

 

[emilynghiem]

View attachment 95419

Here Skylar
I drew you a diagram of the different ranges and realms of people's viewpoints.

Since govt and public institutions are supposed to include and protect people equally regardless of beliefs,
then people like you who believe marriage is a right on the level of other Constitutional rights are in one group.

How does recognizing marriage for same sex couples strip anyone who disagrees of any right?

Having a different 'belief' doesn't mean you can strip people of their rights, Emily. This is the part you've never understood; a belief alone has no authority. So if you have a belief and I have a belief, there's no mandate that any public institution represent them both equally.

You keep pretending that such an imaginary mandate exists. And it never has. Not in the law, our history, our constitution. Just your imagination.

People who disagree and believe otherwise, even rejecting one form of marriage or another, are in other groups.
And I believe in treating and including all such beliefs equally.

And your belief vs. someone else's rights has the same outcome: their rights win.

You having a 'belief' doesn't grant you any special power to strip anyone of any right.

So my goal is to work toward the OUTER SQUARE that accommodates all views even if they conflict with each other.

Same problem as always: there is no such mandate for the representation of all beliefs in any democracy. Beliefs compete. Compete with each other, compete with rights. And rights trump belief.

You've never understood how democracy works, how rights work. And keep awkwardly trying to elevate 'belief' alone to some sacrosanct status that must be represented and given authority.

Um, no. If you have a stupid belief, we're not doing that. Stupid according to who? Our laws, our people and our constitution.

Dear Skylar
It doesn't HAVE to "strip someone of their rights"
to be a violation of the principle behind separation of church and state.

How does gay marriage have a thing to do with the 'separation of church and state'?

Again, you can any belief you want. But it doesn't mean that your view must be represented anywhere. Let alone in public institutions, our law, or our constitution.

If you don't believe in gay marriage, don't have one. But denying a gay or lesbian couple the right to marry because *you* have a belief is ludicrous. As they have a right to marry. And your 'belief' doesn't have any authority over their rights.

However, if either group pushes for either "traditional marriage only" to be endorsed by the state against the beliefs of others that same sex couples should be included
or "same sex marriage" to be endorsed by the state against the beliefs of others that marriage is not for same sex couples,
then both groups rightfully argue that this "violates separation of church and state."

There is no mandate that 'beliefs' be equally represented. Your entire argument is based on an imaginary, false, and fallacious premise.

Beliefs compete. Some win. Some lose. And in a contest between beliefs and rights, rights win. If you don't think that differing beliefs have winners and losers......then let the next election disabuse you of that misconception.

RE: Beliefs compete. Some win. Some lose. And in a contest between beliefs and rights, rights win. If you don't think that differing beliefs have winners and losers......then let the next election disabuse you of that misconception.

SORRY Skylar
but by the First Amendment the govt is not authorized to get involved in contests between beliefs.

The first amendment says no such thing. You've imagined it. And I defy you to cite the amendment indicating that the government lacks the authority to forward one belief over another.

You'll find there is no such passage.

Beliefs compete *constantly*. The entire idea of an election is predicated on people with different beliefs trying to convince a relevant majority of their fellow citizens that the laws and representatives who write it should reflect their beliefs rather than some other guy's.

Your entire conception of the 1st amendment is imaginary nonsense. Nor is there any mandate, anywhere, that all beliefs should be equally represented in our laws.

So far your entire argument has to been to restate the same nonsense premise, that all beliefs must be represented equally. And they don't. Nor have they ever.

So....what else have you got?

PS I posted both the VERBATIM First and Fourteenth Amendments
and my DESCRIPTIONS/EXPLANATIONS of what they mean in practice.

Don't get the two confused.

Now can you answer my question Skylar
where in the First Amendment does it say someone
has to be forced to participate in a belief in order
for "Congress not to establish it" [or govt not to endorse it]?

Can you show me that condition in the First Amendment?
Or did you just "make that up"???

 

[Skylar]

OK lets start here:
RE: Free excercise of religion means that you can practice and believe as you wish. It doesn't mean that you get to violate OTHER people's rights.

If you were REQUIRED to enter into a gay marriage against your religion, that would be a violation of free excercise of religion. But you're not. If you don't believe in gay marriage, you don't have to enter into one.

Yet somehow you've morphed 'free exercise' into you having the power to deny OTHER people the right to marry.....based on your 'belief'. And your belief confers no such authority.

Nor does denying you the ability to deny other people rights deny you of any right yourself.
==================

^ AGREE ^ I just apply this consistently to all sides (while you only apply this to some)
including my own beliefs which I don't go around "mandating through govt" but respect free choice and consent to accept or not.
I respect the fact people like you object, but you don't respect the fact that people object to gay marriage rights endorsed through govt.

No, you haven't applied it 'consistently to all sides'. As when a gay couple is allowed to marry.....you don't lose any rights. If they aren't allowed to marry, THEY lose rights.

I don't think consistent means what you think it means. As what you've proposed is wildly INconsistent. Where no rights are violated in recognizing same sex marriage. And the rights of tens of thousands are violated in denying it.

Once again, opposites are not equals.

* establishing gay marriage beliefs through govt
was DISCRIMINATORY because Christian beliefs about prayer/God etc are not allowed to be endorsed by govt

Your 'christian beliefs' have nothing to do with someone else's rights. Nor are your rights to excercise your religion freely violated when someone ELSE is allowed to marry.

Beliefs are not rights. Nor does your belief trump someone else's rights. Nor is there any constitutional prohibition about the 'establishment or denial of beliefs'. You made that up.

You're stuck here too, Emily.

this is DISCRIMINATION
where one set of beliefs can be ENDORSED by govt as standard policy that all people must accept as included in public institutions
but another set is still being REMOVED based on principle

Christians aren't being removed from marriage. They can still marry. Negating your entire nonsense argument.

As I pointed out before,
Atheists have sued to remove crosses on public property
that weren't "forcing them" in any way.
It was argued based on PRINCIPLE of public institutions
NOT endorsing or establishing a faith based belief or religious reference.

A gay couple being allowed civil marriage isn't establishing any religion. Negating yet another nonsense argument.

 

[Skylar]

How does recognizing marriage for same sex couples strip anyone who disagrees of any right?

Having a different 'belief' doesn't mean you can strip people of their rights, Emily. This is the part you've never understood; a belief alone has no authority. So if you have a belief and I have a belief, there's no mandate that any public institution represent them both equally.

You keep pretending that such an imaginary mandate exists. And it never has. Not in the law, our history, our constitution. Just your imagination.

And your belief vs. someone else's rights has the same outcome: their rights win.

You having a 'belief' doesn't grant you any special power to strip anyone of any right.

Same problem as always: there is no such mandate for the representation of all beliefs in any democracy. Beliefs compete. Compete with each other, compete with rights. And rights trump belief.

You've never understood how democracy works, how rights work. And keep awkwardly trying to elevate 'belief' alone to some sacrosanct status that must be represented and given authority.

Um, no. If you have a stupid belief, we're not doing that. Stupid according to who? Our laws, our people and our constitution.

Dear Skylar
It doesn't HAVE to "strip someone of their rights"
to be a violation of the principle behind separation of church and state.

How does gay marriage have a thing to do with the 'separation of church and state'?

Again, you can any belief you want. But it doesn't mean that your view must be represented anywhere. Let alone in public institutions, our law, or our constitution.

If you don't believe in gay marriage, don't have one. But denying a gay or lesbian couple the right to marry because *you* have a belief is ludicrous. As they have a right to marry. And your 'belief' doesn't have any authority over their rights.

However, if either group pushes for either "traditional marriage only" to be endorsed by the state against the beliefs of others that same sex couples should be included
or "same sex marriage" to be endorsed by the state against the beliefs of others that marriage is not for same sex couples,
then both groups rightfully argue that this "violates separation of church and state."

There is no mandate that 'beliefs' be equally represented. Your entire argument is based on an imaginary, false, and fallacious premise.

Beliefs compete. Some win. Some lose. And in a contest between beliefs and rights, rights win. If you don't think that differing beliefs have winners and losers......then let the next election disabuse you of that misconception.

RE: Beliefs compete. Some win. Some lose. And in a contest between beliefs and rights, rights win. If you don't think that differing beliefs have winners and losers......then let the next election disabuse you of that misconception.

SORRY Skylar
but by the First Amendment the govt is not authorized to get involved in contests between beliefs.

The first amendment says no such thing. You've imagined it. And I defy you to cite the amendment indicating that the government lacks the authority to forward one belief over another.

You'll find there is no such passage.

Beliefs compete *constantly*. The entire idea of an election is predicated on people with different beliefs trying to convince a relevant majority of their fellow citizens that the laws and representatives who write it should reflect their beliefs rather than some other guy's.

Your entire conception of the 1st amendment is imaginary nonsense. Nor is there any mandate, anywhere, that all beliefs should be equally represented in our laws.

So far your entire argument has to been to restate the same nonsense premise, that all beliefs must be represented equally. And they don't. Nor have they ever.

So....what else have you got?

PS I posted both the VERBATIM First and Fourteenth Amendments
and my DESCRIPTIONS/EXPLANATIONS of what they mean in practice.

And neither made the slightest mention of the prohibition of the 'establishment or denial of beliefs'.

You made that up. And your imagination is constitutionally irrelevant.

Sorry, Emily....but you can't get around that.

Now can you answer my question Skylar
where in the First Amendment does it say someone
has to be forced to participate in a belief in order
for "Congress not to establish it" [or govt not to endorse it]?

How is the law recognizing someone *else's* marriage 'forcing you to participate'?

Again, you're not getting married. Nor are you denied ANY rights to marriage. You can refuse to enter into a same sex marriage if you wish. And you can believe whatever you'd like on same sex marriage.

But the law isn't obligated to reflect your beliefs. As there is no constitutional mandate that all beliefs be equally represented in the law.

You've made that up too. And your imagination is still gloriously irrelevant to the constitution.

 

[emilynghiem]

For a law to have authority of the people,
consent is necessary.

Consent by a relevant majority. Not universal consent. And the constitution is the highest law in the land. If a law passed by a given state violate this highest law, the constitution is given preference over the state law that violates it.

This is constitution 101. The relevant majority has every authority to impose its will on the condition that it doesn't violate rights.
When rights are violated, the laws of the relevant majority are invalid.

Your insistence on universal consent has nothing to do with our laws, nor ever has. We have always used the relevant majority as the basis of consent of the governed. Your views aren't reflected in our nation's history, our laws or our constitution.

You simply don't understand how our republic works, how democracy works, or the most fundamental tenets of governance. Universal consent and total agreement by the people is not, nor has ever been a requirement for ANY law.

Once again, you've imagined it.

Thus they push until laws change because they do not agree
where the govt goes against their beliefs. Thus the process
of petitioning continues until grievances are redressed.

The redress of greviances is simply a case being heard and adjudicated. You don't understand what such redress even is. You don't follow the meaning of the terms you're trying to use.

And its this fundamental misunderstanding of basic terms that is the heart of your profound misunderstanding on how democracy works.

It has NEVER been about universal consent. It has NEVER been about absolute consensus. There have ALWAYS been disagreements. And some beliefs win while others lose. With the will of the relevant majority expressed in our law as long as those laws don't violate individual rights.

I AGREE with you we have never fully realized consensus, "equal justice under law"
and full and equal representation and protection of all interests.

Then you just abandoned your own argument. As you were just arguing universal consent a few moments ago.

There is no obligation under our constitution that our law reflect ALL beliefs equally. Nor has there ever been. You've made that up.

You're literally arguing your imagination. Nothing you're arguing has ever been part of our law, our constitution, or our nation's history. And thus has exactly nothing to do with the constitutionality of any law or ruling.

But that IS the spirit of what our laws PRESCRIBE and ASPIRE to.

* Equal Justice Under Law
I agree the current system is bought out by the bigger bully
with more resources, and this isn't equal access to justice much less protection

I am arguing to defend the standards that WOULD
FULFILL "EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW"

* Equal protections under law
Again, we don't have this yet.

Yes, we do. When same sex couples are allowed to marry, they are treated the same as opposite sex couples. They are granted equal protection by the law, as the law treats them the same. No one's rights are being violated by allowing same sex couples to marry.

When we *restrict* same sex couples from gaining access to marriage, they are denied equal protection. They have a right to marry....and that right is denied them under our law. Thus, the law is invalid.

Denying same sex couples rights is not the same thing as recognizing those rights. And yet in defiance of all reason, you equate them.

Opposites are not equals.

Skylar I didn't say that
* I said once ONE set of beliefs gets represented in govt, then the others would have to be also

Nope. There's no such requirement. The entire process of elections is to promote a particular set of beliefs over another. The federalists and the anti-federalists went head to head. The Anti-federalists lost. Thus, the constitution did not reflect their beliefs.

And we've followed the same pattern of competing beliefs ever since. That's how our republic works. That's how democracy works.

Your proposal is irrelevant to our republic, democracy, our history, laws or constitution. As there has never been a mandate that all beliefs be represented equally.

You imagined it.

* or else REMOVE them all
So I agree with you the solution IS to remove references to beliefs from govt

No you don't. As I've never argued that. I've argued the exact opposite....that the relevant majority has EVERY authority to impose its will through law unless such laws violate rights.

So we don't agree. And I've told you as much. And you've ignored what I've said....and replaced it with your imagination. Exactly as you've done with the 1st amendment.

And its just as irrelevant to me as its irrelevant to the constitution when you do it.

No, Skylar
the majority only has authority where the people CONSENT to give that authority to govt.

if you have 10 people in a room and
8 vote to rob and rape the remaining 2
does it make it legal to do so "as long as you follow the legal process"
to document the decision was made using the prescribed structure
that the 10 people previously agreed to follow.

please apply common sense.

Yes, if people AGREE to authorize certain govt decisions by majority rule
Yes, if you agree to that then you comply with that process.

But I can cite any number of Constitutional scholars, historians etc.
who will vouch that the meaning and history of the Constitution
and process that built this country NEVER authorized govt
to manage, regulate much less dictate areas of BELIEFS or SOCIAL programs.

And as many people will argue that in history we have STRAYED
from the original intent and limitations/restrictions put on Govt by the Constitution.

Do you want to make a public bet on this?

I will bet you 10 million dollars that the Constitution
was designed to enforce limitations on govt and NEVER
intended to give federal govt authority over people's personal
lives, decisions and especially NOT areas of beliefs and faith.

NEVER.

In fact, the people and states opposed to the Constitution only
spelling out the powers of federal govt, INSISTED on tagging on
the BILL OF RIGHTS SPELLING OUT INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS
AS A CONDITION FOR PASSING/RATIFYING THE CONSTITUTION

That was only agreed on with the CONDITION that the
Bill of Rights be added as Amendments/Articles 1-10.

The spirit of the laws is based on Consent of the Governed.

This is a natural law, basic principles that govern human nature.

Nobody I knows consents to collective authority used to impose on them
UNLESS THEY AGREE WITH THE POLICY BEING IMPOSED.

And especially with BELIEFS, people do NOT agree to let govt dictate beliefs for them.

Everyone I know wants their CONSENT respected.
That is just natural law. Just human nature.
People have free will. We do not want anything forced
on us against our will, but want to share in the decision making
to make sure our interests are included and any issues resolved that would otherwise affect us adversely.

That is just common logic and conscience.

Sorry Skylar but you cannot reinvent human nature
to agree to be imposed upon by collective authority against theìr will and especially their beliefs!

You are not even willing to deal with my beliefs when I am offering them freely as an option.
What makes you think anyone would agree to have
govt impose beliefs on you or them,
when you have shown nothing but objection to anything but defending your own beliefs.

All the fighting we see politically is people REFUSING to
let "other people and groups" take control of govt to push THEIR agenda
AGAINST THEIR BELIEFS AND WITHOUT THEIR CONSENT.

Nobody I knows agrees to that. Not even you!

 

[emilynghiem]

Dear Skylar
It doesn't HAVE to "strip someone of their rights"
to be a violation of the principle behind separation of church and state.

How does gay marriage have a thing to do with the 'separation of church and state'?

Again, you can any belief you want. But it doesn't mean that your view must be represented anywhere. Let alone in public institutions, our law, or our constitution.

If you don't believe in gay marriage, don't have one. But denying a gay or lesbian couple the right to marry because *you* have a belief is ludicrous. As they have a right to marry. And your 'belief' doesn't have any authority over their rights.

However, if either group pushes for either "traditional marriage only" to be endorsed by the state against the beliefs of others that same sex couples should be included
or "same sex marriage" to be endorsed by the state against the beliefs of others that marriage is not for same sex couples,
then both groups rightfully argue that this "violates separation of church and state."

There is no mandate that 'beliefs' be equally represented. Your entire argument is based on an imaginary, false, and fallacious premise.

Beliefs compete. Some win. Some lose. And in a contest between beliefs and rights, rights win. If you don't think that differing beliefs have winners and losers......then let the next election disabuse you of that misconception.

RE: Beliefs compete. Some win. Some lose. And in a contest between beliefs and rights, rights win. If you don't think that differing beliefs have winners and losers......then let the next election disabuse you of that misconception.

SORRY Skylar
but by the First Amendment the govt is not authorized to get involved in contests between beliefs.

The first amendment says no such thing. You've imagined it. And I defy you to cite the amendment indicating that the government lacks the authority to forward one belief over another.

You'll find there is no such passage.

Beliefs compete *constantly*. The entire idea of an election is predicated on people with different beliefs trying to convince a relevant majority of their fellow citizens that the laws and representatives who write it should reflect their beliefs rather than some other guy's.

Your entire conception of the 1st amendment is imaginary nonsense. Nor is there any mandate, anywhere, that all beliefs should be equally represented in our laws.

So far your entire argument has to been to restate the same nonsense premise, that all beliefs must be represented equally. And they don't. Nor have they ever.

So....what else have you got?

PS I posted both the VERBATIM First and Fourteenth Amendments
and my DESCRIPTIONS/EXPLANATIONS of what they mean in practice.

And neither made the slightest mention of the prohibition of the 'establishment or denial of beliefs'.

You made that up. And your imagination is constitutionally irrelevant.

Sorry, Emily....but you can't get around that.

Now can you answer my question Skylar
where in the First Amendment does it say someone
has to be forced to participate in a belief in order
for "Congress not to establish it" [or govt not to endorse it]?

How is the law recognizing someone *else's* marriage 'forcing you to participate'?

Again, you're not getting married. Nor are you denied ANY rights to marriage. You can refuse to enter into a same sex marriage if you wish. And you can believe whatever you'd like on same sex marriage.

But the law isn't obligated to reflect your beliefs. As there is no constitutional mandate that all beliefs be equally represented in the law.

You've made that up too. And your imagination is still gloriously irrelevant to the constitution.

If you have such a problem with the PARAPHRASE I used
then I AGRE E TO STICK TO THE VERBATIM FIRST AMENDMENT
AND CITE IT AS
"neither establishing nor prohibiting"

(A1) is THAT good enough if you don't like me paraphrasìng it as "denying" etc.
Do we agree to use THAT language
* not ESTABLISHING
* not PROHIBITING

(A2) Skylar are you okay with applying that to marriage beliefs
* not ESTABLISHING marriage beliefs
* not PROHIBITING marriage beliefs

Now for (B)
Where does the First Amendment require that
for Congress not to respect an establishment of religion
then "someone has to be forced"

WHERE IS THAT IN THE FIRST AMENDMENT
OR DID YOU JUST MAKE THAT UP ????

If you cannot answer B,
can you answer if we can agree on A1 or A2

I cited the First Amendment verbatim so obviously I am okay with the VERBATIM
language if you are.

If you cannot deal with any paraphrasing such as "deny" or other terms I used to explain the meaning and application
* I NEVER SAID YOU OR I HAD TO USE THAT LANGUAGE
* I NEVER SAID THE FIRST AMENDMENT USED THAT LANGUAGE VERBATIM,
IN FACT, I CITED IT VERBATIM TO CLARIFY WHAT IT DOES SAY

A 1
ARE YOU OKAY USING THE MORE EXACT WORDING OF
"NEITHER ESTABLISHING NOR PROHIBITING"

A 2
ARE YOU OKAY APPLYING THIS TO MARRIAGE BELIEFS
WHERE CONGRESS/GOVT CAN NEITHER
"ESTABLISH NOR PROHIBIT"

Thanks Skylar does this help?
to go back to the original First Amendment
language that I did cite verbatim if you'd rather stick with that?

 

[emilynghiem]

OK lets start here:
RE: Free excercise of religion means that you can practice and believe as you wish. It doesn't mean that you get to violate OTHER people's rights.

If you were REQUIRED to enter into a gay marriage against your religion, that would be a violation of free excercise of religion. But you're not. If you don't believe in gay marriage, you don't have to enter into one.

Yet somehow you've morphed 'free exercise' into you having the power to deny OTHER people the right to marry.....based on your 'belief'. And your belief confers no such authority.

Nor does denying you the ability to deny other people rights deny you of any right yourself.
==================

^ AGREE ^ I just apply this consistently to all sides (while you only apply this to some)
including my own beliefs which I don't go around "mandating through govt" but respect free choice and consent to accept or not.
I respect the fact people like you object, but you don't respect the fact that people object to gay marriage rights endorsed through govt.

No, you haven't applied it 'consistently to all sides'. As when a gay couple is allowed to marry.....you don't lose any rights. If they aren't allowed to marry, THEY lose rights.

I don't think consistent means what you think it means. As what you've proposed is wildly INconsistent. Where no rights are violated in recognizing same sex marriage. And the rights of tens of thousands are violated in denying it.

Once again, opposites are not equals.

* establishing gay marriage beliefs through govt
was DISCRIMINATORY because Christian beliefs about prayer/God etc are not allowed to be endorsed by govt

Your 'christian beliefs' have nothing to do with someone else's rights. Nor are your rights to excercise your religion freely violated when someone ELSE is allowed to marry.

Beliefs are not rights. Nor does your belief trump someone else's rights. Nor is there any constitutional prohibition about the 'establishment or denial of beliefs'. You made that up.

You're stuck here too, Emily.

this is DISCRIMINATION
where one set of beliefs can be ENDORSED by govt as standard policy that all people must accept as included in public institutions
but another set is still being REMOVED based on principle

Christians aren't being removed from marriage. They can still marry. Negating your entire nonsense argument.

As I pointed out before,
Atheists have sued to remove crosses on public property
that weren't "forcing them" in any way.
It was argued based on PRINCIPLE of public institutions
NOT endorsing or establishing a faith based belief or religious reference.

A gay couple being allowed civil marriage isn't establishing any religion. Negating yet another nonsense argument.

Again re: As when a gay couple is allowed to marry.....you don't lose any rights.

Where in the First Amendment does it require that 'someone's rights be lost'
in order for CONGRESS not to ESTABLISH or to PROHIBIT a faith based belief.

Does the First Amendment tag on that condition that "someone's rights be lost"
Where does it say that or
did you just 'make that up' Skylar

 

[emilynghiem]

Like when they 'changed the definition of marriage' in States with restrictions on interracial marriage?

All you're doing is arbitrarily labeling your favorite definition of marriage the 'one true definition'. And anything that doesn't conform to your arbitrary choice must be a 'change in the meaning of marriage.

But that's not actually an argument, as there's nothing sacrosanct about your personal preferences. Marriage has taken many, many forms. You choosing to ignore anything but your preference doesn't make the others magically disappear.

Silliness- marriage throughout history was never defined as union between 2 people of the same race, it was defined as a union between a man a woman. The race card you are playing is a legal/cultural difference specific to certain countries or cultures, not uniform in the commonly recognized definition. Perhaps you can expand your thinking to include countries and cultures outside of the US when considering the definition of marriage.

Marriage through out history has been all sorts of things. Its been the union of one man and many women. Or one man and one woman. Or a union of children. Its been defined by race, language, religion. Its been a union of equals. Its been grossly assymetrical where women were essentially property of their husbands. Its been a union that people entered into willingly. Its been arranged by parents or religious leaders regardless of consent.

The idea that the version of marriage most convenient to your argument is the only 'true' definition is demonstrable nonsense.

Marriage is, and always has been, whatever we say it is. We invented it. It exists to service our society. It is not, nor has ever been an immutable constant. But differs on the society, the time period, and time periods within the same society.

Making your 'one true and only definition of marriage' standard just arbitrary. And limiting no society, law or court in applying marriage in a fashion that is consistent with that society's values.

And we always said it is the lifetime union of a man and a woman. Always. That three or four or five justices say different, along with the Hollywood elite and various billionaires cannot change that.

The SCOTUS deciding 5 to 4 on this issue simply means there is no reasonable answer either way, only a political answer.

So why are morons here arguing about it?

Just to hear themselves talking obviously.

Obergefell v. Hodges - Wikipedia

Says who? Not our constitution. The authority to apply the judicial power rests with the Judiciary. The Judiciary is led by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court ruled. Thus, the Judiciary applied the Judicial power in accordance with the constitution.

Skylar
Not even the Judiciary has the "Constitutional authority" to make decision involving beliefs.

The proper answer would be for the judges to kick the cases back to the people bringing them,
and order them to resolve their own issues of beliefs first, and/or write laws that include and reflect those equally.
And if this cannot be done, then remove the issue from the state and keep it private.

 

[emilynghiem]

Equating two people of the same sex who cannot procreate with two people of different races is absurd and a misinterpretation of "separate but equal".

Marriage and sex are about procreation as far as society is concerned; the reason that states grant couples legal marriage privilidges is because it incentivites them to start a family which ideally will contribute to the economy and society.

Since gays cannot make children it defeats the whole purpose of offering them marriage incentives to begin with; therefore there is no reason for the state to do it; not to mention that allowing gays to adopt children puts the children in an unnatural environment which is likely harmful to them.

Therefore the Supreme court's ruling would best be overturned with a Constitutional amendment placing marriage solely in the hands of the states.

P.S. as for the beliefs about "Equating two people of the same sex who cannot procreate with two people of different races is absurd and a misinterpretation of "separate but equal".

Procreation isn't a requirement for anyone's marriage. Making it irrelevant to any discussion of what is required for the validity of a marriage.

People have the right to believe that traditional and same sex marriages/relationships are equal.

Just NOT the right to impose this through govt on everyone else.

No one is forcing anyone to get married....gay, straight or otherwise. Nixing the 'imposing through government' argument. Marriage is completely voluntary. Gay, straight or otherwise.

Regardless if beliefs are right or wrong, people have equal rights to exercise their beliefs without being discriminated, harassed, excluded or penalized by law.

Not using the force of government they don't. As the power of government is limited by the rights of people. And the right to marry cannot be abrogated because you 'believe' otherwise.

"Force" or "forcing someone" is not a requirement
in the First Amendment for Congress not to make laws that either
"ESTABLISH nor PROHIBIT" beliefs/free exercise of religion.

Skylar thank you for the effort to explain where you are not following
what I mean. I am crediting all your messages with "informative" and
will try to "thank" the ones I agree with, even though you don't always
apply the same principles to all beliefs and all sides of this equation.

 

[emilynghiem]

P.S. as for the beliefs about "Equating two people of the same sex who cannot procreate with two people of different races is absurd and a misinterpretation of "separate but equal".

Procreation isn't a requirement for anyone's marriage. Making it irrelevant to any discussion of what is required for the validity of a marriage.

People have the right to believe that traditional and same sex marriages/relationships are equal.

Just NOT the right to impose this through govt on everyone else.

No one is forcing anyone to get married....gay, straight or otherwise. Nixing the 'imposing through government' argument. Marriage is completely voluntary. Gay, straight or otherwise.

Regardless if beliefs are right or wrong, people have equal rights to exercise their beliefs without being discriminated, harassed, excluded or penalized by law.

Not using the force of government they don't. As the power of government is limited by the rights of people. And the right to marry cannot be abrogated because you 'believe' otherwise.

Dear Skylar
1. I agree that nobody's beliefs or 'requirement" for marriage should be pushed through govt!

You're agreeing with yourself then. As I've said clearly that rights trump government powers. And when you try to use your 'believe' to abrogate someone else's rights using government, the constitution stops you.

Remember, you put 'belief' up on this bizarre absolutist pedestal. But neither the law nor the constitution does. Which is why so many court rulings and laws are at odds with your assessment of the authority of 'belief'.

'Belief' has no authority. Rights do.

If Christian beliefs cannot be pushed through govt,
then neither should beliefs about homosexuality
or transgender identity that are faith based
and/or considered 'behavior of choice' that not everyone has to accept.

Belief isn't a basis of authority. It never has been. You've imagined it. Thus, your 'belief should trump rights' nonsense has no rational application in the real world.

As no, Emily....your beliefs do not allow you to override anyone else's rights.

You keep coming to the same fallacy again and again, concluding that since each side of the gay marriage issue is a 'belief', that neither side should prevail. The problem with that assessment....is rights. Gays and lesbians have the right to marry. And their rights can't be abrogated by your beliefs.

See how that works?

Dear Skylar
I think we agree in principle but you are calling things rights and saying I am calling them beliefs.
They are both.

Nope. Beliefs and rights aren't the same thing. And no, we don't agree in principle. Rights trump beliefs. If you believe that gays should never been allowed to marry....and gays have the right to marry, they win.

That you have a 'belief' doesn't, in any way, provide you with any authority to strip any person of any right. Your conception of 'beliefs' is imaginary nonsense that has no reflection in the real world. As your equating rights and beliefs demonstrates.

I'm sorry, Emily....but your beliefs impart no authority on your position, mandate no recognition or representation by any public institution, nor grant you the ability to abrogate any right.

If your way of framing "right to marriage"
excludes and conflicts with the beliefs of others,
then that ISN'T UNIVERSAL.

Nor does it need to be 'universal'. Again, there's no mandate that all beliefs be equally represented.

Your position that all beliefs must be equally represented by public institutions.....is completely and utterly imaginary. There is no such mandate. Nor has their ever been. When beliefs compete, there are winners and losers.

correction I did NOT "say or mean" that
"beliefs and rights are the same thing"

Skylar
what I meant is that
we are *talking about the same thing*
when we discuss "right to marriage"
although I refer to it as a political belief
(under religious freedom which is a Constitutional right)
and you refer to it as a right on the same level as other rights.

If we both refer to Mr Johnson
as both a Father and a Husband
we are still talking about the
same man, Mr. Johnson,
but that DOES NOT MEAN
A FATHER IS THE SAME
THING AS A HUSBAND

My point is:
we can still AGREE We
are talking about the SAME
MAN, even if we are both
using different terms for him!

our terms may not agree
but that doesn't have to get in the way
where we argue over that and
lose focus on the content....

 

[emilynghiem]

"Govt is being used to endorse and REPRESENT a set of beliefs"

No, it is not.

'Government' is not being used to do any such thing.

State governments were being used to deny same-sex couples their right to equal protection of the law and due process of the law by enacting measures hostile to gay Americans predicated solely on their sexual orientation.

The courts appropriately, consistent with settled, accepted 14th Amendment jurisprudence, invalidated those measures.

That's it, nothing more.

Dear C_Clayton_Jones
You are talking about two different things
A. it is one thing to strike down BANS that are unconstitutional
B. it is another thing to implement same sex marriage by legislation under state or federal govt
instead of say, changing all such language regarding contracts and benefits
to "civil unions and domestic partnerships" which people can choose to designate freely that make no reference
to marriage and thus carry no bias on beliefs about social relationships etc.

In fact, there was one state that at one point
struck down the ban on gay marriage
but then didn't endorse it either.

So it is possible to remove bans to it
but without endorsing it and proactively institutionalizing it through the govt.

I think the same arguments could apply to legalization of drugs
or prostitution, and agreeing to decriminalize it but not endorse or regulate it formally through the state.
At least until the people of that state agree on policy.
in the meantime, even if you don't agree, couldn't the bans or criminalization still be removed or put on moratorium
until replacement legislation is passed?

 

[emilynghiem]

Dear Skylar
I see in your messages that you refer to prochoice women's right to choose
and somewhere addressed my beliefs as "Christian" instead of "Constitutionalist"

Do you understand that I also support the prochoice arguments on Constitutional
grounds, and although I defend the "right to life" as a BELIEF I enforce the Constitution
first that would bar govt from enforcing or endorsing this BELIEF (except if there is consensus by the public to write and pass such a law)

I just want to make sure you understand you are
addressing someone who believes the govt should
enforce Constitutional principles where we all AGREE
before or instead of enforcing any policies on BELIEFS
which I still argue can only be passed Constitutionally
****IF**** THEY REFLECT INCLUDE AND REPRESENT
the consent of all people who are affected by such policies.

You keep taking what I am saying out of this context.

So if you are saying that NO LAWS can reflect and represent
the beliefs of all people, then you and I AGREE to keep those OUT of govt.

So I agree with you on that.
I just state it differently "in terms of beliefs"
but it's the same as saying "keep these out of govt"

I don't agree with your assessment that the
process has "always been" about imposing one set of beliefs over another.

And you don't agree with my view of the whole process
as addressing and resolving conflicts until consensus is reached.

the difference Skylar is that my viewpoint
can include your beliefs/viewpoints even if you and I don't agre e
and I don't have to insult you or accuse you of thing syou don't mean.l

but when it comes to your viewpoint trying to include mine,
since you can't include it in your framework,
you end up trying to insult me, attack what I said
when that's not what I mean, etc.

Your viewpoint is conflicting where it cannot
explain or accommodate mine,
but mine can accommodate both yours and mine
as equal beliefs we both have the right to live by.

So that's why I offer this more open inclusive approach
I believe should be the "govt default"
in order to protect and defend people's rights to their beliefs.

Your view fails to include and protect mine equally.
but my view can still include and protect yours and mine under a larger umbrella.

So I'd say that is the larger set, and your view is a subset.

Since your view conflicts with others, that's why I'm saying
govt cannot endorse that without discriminating and
excluding others whose views aren't being included equally.

 

[ding]

I'll go one step further... not only is gay marriage not a constitutional right, people who prefer to have sex with the same gender are not being discriminated against just because they are not allowed to marry someone of the same sex.

 

[ding]

I will bet you 10 million dollars that the Constitution
was designed to enforce limitations on govt and NEVER
intended to give federal govt authority over people's personal
lives, decisions and especially NOT areas of beliefs and faith.

NEVER.

Proof of this can be found in the 1st Amendment Establishment of Religion Clause which prevented the Federal Government from establishing a state religion and interfering with the establishment of state religions of which approximately half of the 13 colonies had at the time the Constitution was ratified in 1789.