Gay marriage is not a constitutional right

[emilynghiem]

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.

Hi ding Yes and no.

1. If you are talking about the SPIRITUAL marriage of "marrying the one you love"
yes this is discrimination to "ban a particular religious practice" that everyone remains free to do privately.
However, it's not for the state to endorse marriage as a spiritual practice for the same reason.
If it's part of religious freedom, govt should not be making laws anyway, one way or another, respecting a religious establishment. So this definition of marriage does not belong in state jurisdiction period.
Not unless all people in a state consent to a policy so there is equal inclusion and no discrimination
or imposition of bias that isn't approved by the people affected, since their religious freedom is involved.

2. If you take this same argument to its full conclusion, anyone should have the right to enter into a civil union or domestic partnership as a " business contract" with any other consenting legally competent adult.
So as other people are arguing, it's imposing a moral/subjective value to assume "marriage" has to be for procreation and thus banning family members from marrying, when they COULD form a partnership and ask for social benefits as primary partner and beneficiary secondary partner, and just not plan to bear any children together.

Technically, if any two people decide to run a household together, even if they don't plan to have kids or adopt the, why shouldn't they be eligible to declare themselves as primary and secondary beneficiaries when claiming benefits? Who says these two people have to be "husband and wife" or have kids together?

Another reason to rethink marriage, maybe leave the subjective rules and traditions to private interpretation and religious freedom; and just keep the "civil unions/domestic partnerships" as NEUTRAL contracts under the state that have no social conditions attached regarding any particular type of personal relationship between the two people -- but ONLY recognizing the legal and financial business agreements (this still can include legal guardianship, custody, executors, directives etc. and recognize legal authority without dictating anything to do with social status of personal relationships that people don't agree on)

BTW RE your other post, this is one area people have trouble being objective on, because they project so many of their personal issues and experiences onto this. So unfortunately it's very hard to stick to the legal objective part, and just preserve the "civil unions/domestic partnerships" and leave the rest to personal choice and freedom outside the govt realm.

 

[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.

Hi ding Yes and no.

1. If you are talking about the SPIRITUAL marriage of "marrying the one you love"
yes this is discrimination to "ban a particular religious practice" that everyone remains free to do privately.
However, it's not for the state to endorse marriage as a spiritual practice for the same reason.
If it's part of religious freedom, govt should not be making laws anyway, one way or another, respecting a religious establishment. So this definition of marriage does not belong in state jurisdiction period.
Not unless all people in a state consent to a policy so there is equal inclusion and no discrimination
or imposition of bias that isn't approved by the people affected, since their religious freedom is involved.

2. If you take this same argument to its full conclusion, anyone should have the right to enter into a civil union or domestic partnership as a " business contract" with any other consenting legally competent adult.
So as other people are arguing, it's imposing a moral/subjective value to assume "marriage" has to be for procreation and thus banning family members from marrying, when they COULD form a partnership and ask for social benefits as primary partner and beneficiary secondary partner, and just not plan to bear any children together.

Technically, if any two people decide to run a household together, even if they don't plan to have kids or adopt the, why shouldn't they be eligible to declare themselves as primary and secondary beneficiaries when claiming benefits? Who says these two people have to be "husband and wife" or have kids together?

Another reason to rethink marriage, maybe leave the subjective rules and traditions to private interpretation and religious freedom; and just keep the "civil unions/domestic partnerships" as NEUTRAL contracts under the state that have no social conditions attached regarding any particular type of personal relationship between the two people -- but ONLY recognizing the legal and financial business agreements (this still can include legal guardianship, custody, executors, directives etc. and recognize legal authority without dictating anything to do with social status of personal relationships that people don't agree on)

BTW RE your other post, this is one area people have trouble being objective on, because they project so many of their personal issues and experiences onto this. So unfortunately it's very hard to stick to the legal objective part, and just preserve the "civil unions/domestic partnerships" and leave the rest to personal choice and freedom outside the govt realm.

Sexual orientation is not a class of people. It is a sexual preference. I could claim I was gay one day and straight the next and no one could prove otherwise on either day. So I don't see how we can consider a sexual preference a class of people. Secondly, as long as the limitation on marriage - which has always existed - is applied equally (i.e. regardless of sexual orientation) there can be no discrimination as there is an equal application of the law.

 

[emilynghiem]

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.

Hi ding Yes and no.

1. If you are talking about the SPIRITUAL marriage of "marrying the one you love"
yes this is discrimination to "ban a particular religious practice" that everyone remains free to do privately.
However, it's not for the state to endorse marriage as a spiritual practice for the same reason.
If it's part of religious freedom, govt should not be making laws anyway, one way or another, respecting a religious establishment. So this definition of marriage does not belong in state jurisdiction period.
Not unless all people in a state consent to a policy so there is equal inclusion and no discrimination
or imposition of bias that isn't approved by the people affected, since their religious freedom is involved.

2. If you take this same argument to its full conclusion, anyone should have the right to enter into a civil union or domestic partnership as a " business contract" with any other consenting legally competent adult.
So as other people are arguing, it's imposing a moral/subjective value to assume "marriage" has to be for procreation and thus banning family members from marrying, when they COULD form a partnership and ask for social benefits as primary partner and beneficiary secondary partner, and just not plan to bear any children together.

Technically, if any two people decide to run a household together, even if they don't plan to have kids or adopt the, why shouldn't they be eligible to declare themselves as primary and secondary beneficiaries when claiming benefits? Who says these two people have to be "husband and wife" or have kids together?

Another reason to rethink marriage, maybe leave the subjective rules and traditions to private interpretation and religious freedom; and just keep the "civil unions/domestic partnerships" as NEUTRAL contracts under the state that have no social conditions attached regarding any particular type of personal relationship between the two people -- but ONLY recognizing the legal and financial business agreements (this still can include legal guardianship, custody, executors, directives etc. and recognize legal authority without dictating anything to do with social status of personal relationships that people don't agree on)

BTW RE your other post, this is one area people have trouble being objective on, because they project so many of their personal issues and experiences onto this. So unfortunately it's very hard to stick to the legal objective part, and just preserve the "civil unions/domestic partnerships" and leave the rest to personal choice and freedom outside the govt realm.

Sexual orientation is not a class of people. It is a sexual preference. I could claim I was gay one day and straight the next and no one could prove otherwise on either day. So I don't see how we can consider a sexual preference a class of people. Secondly, as long as the limitation on marriage - which has always existed - is applied equally (i.e. regardless of sexual orientation) there can be no discrimination as there is an equal application of the law.

1. I would say to make it an equal application, all the social conditions have to be taken out and leave the neutral template that any two people can fill in, regardless what is their personal relationship with each other.

2. yes, I would treat "sexual orientation and gender identity" as someone chooses their "spiritual identity" or "political/religious affiliation"

I find that it is more an issue of spiritual process and path in life, and yes it can change.
This is not something for govt to try to dictate, or "label" govern and manage.

We do not have a separate class protecting people who identity as "Muslim or Anarchist"
who feel oppressed by predominant social standards influenced by Christian and
Constitutionalist traditions.

However, maybe we SHOULD demand equal treatment as the LGBT.

Maybe the Libertarians and Greens should declare they need "equal protection of the laws"
from discrimination by Republicans and Democrats.

Maybe the Constitutionalists who don't believe that Courts have authority to "create rights"
such as "right to marriage" and "right to health care" can argue this is discriminating
against equal political beliefs in "right to life [beginning at conception]" and gun rights without govt regulations.

We can address this in two ways:
1. Either argue to treat LGBT as any other religious faith-based identity or following
so to argue to separate the values and beliefs from govt, the same way other faith-based groups
cannot establish their beliefs through govt for everyone else to recognize
2. or ask ALL OTHER groups that feel discriminated against to have the same freedom
NOT to be barred from recognizing their beliefs through govt

Either way, treat all faith based groups the same.

Either open the door for all of them to have special legislation and rights to protect their beliefs
from harassment infringement and discrimination by creed.

Or shut the door on this whole idea, and get ALL beliefs out of govt,
and perhaps set up separate policies and programs PER PARTY where those groups can
get what they want, but not implement that through govt without the consent of other parties and groups.

If States and State reps can bargain with each other, and get legislation passed
if they add benefits for this State or that State to get something out of the deal,
why can't Parties form their own governments to manage all the benefits they want to fund
among their own membership, and when it comes to national policy, the Parties can
meet and negotiate, and trade out getting different things into law where all the parties agree it's a fair deal.

Could we do it that way?
What do you think ding?

Would you like to start a Spiritual Senate
and ask peacemakers from each party
with visions how this could be done,
to come together and have a Constitutional Conference
on how to set up a peace and justice dept that
mediates between parties on areas of conflict over political beliefs?

Hello?

 

[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.

Hi ding Yes and no.

1. If you are talking about the SPIRITUAL marriage of "marrying the one you love"
yes this is discrimination to "ban a particular religious practice" that everyone remains free to do privately.
However, it's not for the state to endorse marriage as a spiritual practice for the same reason.
If it's part of religious freedom, govt should not be making laws anyway, one way or another, respecting a religious establishment. So this definition of marriage does not belong in state jurisdiction period.
Not unless all people in a state consent to a policy so there is equal inclusion and no discrimination
or imposition of bias that isn't approved by the people affected, since their religious freedom is involved.

2. If you take this same argument to its full conclusion, anyone should have the right to enter into a civil union or domestic partnership as a " business contract" with any other consenting legally competent adult.
So as other people are arguing, it's imposing a moral/subjective value to assume "marriage" has to be for procreation and thus banning family members from marrying, when they COULD form a partnership and ask for social benefits as primary partner and beneficiary secondary partner, and just not plan to bear any children together.

Technically, if any two people decide to run a household together, even if they don't plan to have kids or adopt the, why shouldn't they be eligible to declare themselves as primary and secondary beneficiaries when claiming benefits? Who says these two people have to be "husband and wife" or have kids together?

Another reason to rethink marriage, maybe leave the subjective rules and traditions to private interpretation and religious freedom; and just keep the "civil unions/domestic partnerships" as NEUTRAL contracts under the state that have no social conditions attached regarding any particular type of personal relationship between the two people -- but ONLY recognizing the legal and financial business agreements (this still can include legal guardianship, custody, executors, directives etc. and recognize legal authority without dictating anything to do with social status of personal relationships that people don't agree on)

BTW RE your other post, this is one area people have trouble being objective on, because they project so many of their personal issues and experiences onto this. So unfortunately it's very hard to stick to the legal objective part, and just preserve the "civil unions/domestic partnerships" and leave the rest to personal choice and freedom outside the govt realm.

Sexual orientation is not a class of people. It is a sexual preference. I could claim I was gay one day and straight the next and no one could prove otherwise on either day. So I don't see how we can consider a sexual preference a class of people. Secondly, as long as the limitation on marriage - which has always existed - is applied equally (i.e. regardless of sexual orientation) there can be no discrimination as there is an equal application of the law.

1. I would say to make it an equal application, all the social conditions have to be taken out and leave the neutral template that any two people can fill in, regardless what is their personal relationship with each other.

2. yes, I would treat "sexual orientation and gender identity" as someone chooses their "spiritual identity" or "political/religious affiliation"

I find that it is more an issue of spiritual process and path in life, and yes it can change.
This is not something for govt to try to dictate, or "label" govern and manage.

We do not have a separate class protecting people who identity as "Muslim or Anarchist"
who feel oppressed by predominant social standards influenced by Christian and
Constitutionalist traditions.

However, maybe we SHOULD demand equal treatment as the LGBT.

Maybe the Libertarians and Greens should declare they need "equal protection of the laws"
from discrimination by Republicans and Democrats.

Maybe the Constitutionalists who don't believe that Courts have authority to "create rights"
such as "right to marriage" and "right to health care" can argue this is discriminating
against equal political beliefs in "right to life [beginning at conception]" and gun rights without govt regulations.

We can address this in two ways:
1. Either argue to treat LGBT as any other religious faith-based identity or following
so to argue to separate the values and beliefs from govt, the same way other faith-based groups
cannot establish their beliefs through govt for everyone else to recognize
2. or ask ALL OTHER groups that feel discriminated against to have the same freedom
NOT to be barred from recognizing their beliefs through govt

Either way, treat all faith based groups the same.

Either open the door for all of them to have special legislation and rights to protect their beliefs
from harassment infringement and discrimination by creed.

Or shut the door on this whole idea, and get ALL beliefs out of govt,
and perhaps set up separate policies and programs PER PARTY where those groups can
get what they want, but not implement that through govt without the consent of other parties and groups.

If States and State reps can bargain with each other, and get legislation passed
if they add benefits for this State or that State to get something out of the deal,
why can't Parties form their own governments to manage all the benefits they want to fund
among their own membership, and when it comes to national policy, the Parties can
meet and negotiate, and trade out getting different things into law where all the parties agree it's a fair deal.

Could we do it that way?
What do you think ding?

Would you like to start a Spiritual Senate
and ask peacemakers from each party
with visions how this could be done,
to come together and have a Constitutional Conference
on how to set up a peace and justice dept that
mediates between parties on areas of conflict over political beliefs?

Hello?

So then, why limit it to two people, right?

 

[emilynghiem]

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.

Hi ding Yes and no.

1. If you are talking about the SPIRITUAL marriage of "marrying the one you love"
yes this is discrimination to "ban a particular religious practice" that everyone remains free to do privately.
However, it's not for the state to endorse marriage as a spiritual practice for the same reason.
If it's part of religious freedom, govt should not be making laws anyway, one way or another, respecting a religious establishment. So this definition of marriage does not belong in state jurisdiction period.
Not unless all people in a state consent to a policy so there is equal inclusion and no discrimination
or imposition of bias that isn't approved by the people affected, since their religious freedom is involved.

2. If you take this same argument to its full conclusion, anyone should have the right to enter into a civil union or domestic partnership as a " business contract" with any other consenting legally competent adult.
So as other people are arguing, it's imposing a moral/subjective value to assume "marriage" has to be for procreation and thus banning family members from marrying, when they COULD form a partnership and ask for social benefits as primary partner and beneficiary secondary partner, and just not plan to bear any children together.

Technically, if any two people decide to run a household together, even if they don't plan to have kids or adopt the, why shouldn't they be eligible to declare themselves as primary and secondary beneficiaries when claiming benefits? Who says these two people have to be "husband and wife" or have kids together?

Another reason to rethink marriage, maybe leave the subjective rules and traditions to private interpretation and religious freedom; and just keep the "civil unions/domestic partnerships" as NEUTRAL contracts under the state that have no social conditions attached regarding any particular type of personal relationship between the two people -- but ONLY recognizing the legal and financial business agreements (this still can include legal guardianship, custody, executors, directives etc. and recognize legal authority without dictating anything to do with social status of personal relationships that people don't agree on)

BTW RE your other post, this is one area people have trouble being objective on, because they project so many of their personal issues and experiences onto this. So unfortunately it's very hard to stick to the legal objective part, and just preserve the "civil unions/domestic partnerships" and leave the rest to personal choice and freedom outside the govt realm.

Sexual orientation is not a class of people. It is a sexual preference. I could claim I was gay one day and straight the next and no one could prove otherwise on either day. So I don't see how we can consider a sexual preference a class of people. Secondly, as long as the limitation on marriage - which has always existed - is applied equally (i.e. regardless of sexual orientation) there can be no discrimination as there is an equal application of the law.

1. I would say to make it an equal application, all the social conditions have to be taken out and leave the neutral template that any two people can fill in, regardless what is their personal relationship with each other.

2. yes, I would treat "sexual orientation and gender identity" as someone chooses their "spiritual identity" or "political/religious affiliation"

I find that it is more an issue of spiritual process and path in life, and yes it can change.
This is not something for govt to try to dictate, or "label" govern and manage.

We do not have a separate class protecting people who identity as "Muslim or Anarchist"
who feel oppressed by predominant social standards influenced by Christian and
Constitutionalist traditions.

However, maybe we SHOULD demand equal treatment as the LGBT.

Maybe the Libertarians and Greens should declare they need "equal protection of the laws"
from discrimination by Republicans and Democrats.

Maybe the Constitutionalists who don't believe that Courts have authority to "create rights"
such as "right to marriage" and "right to health care" can argue this is discriminating
against equal political beliefs in "right to life [beginning at conception]" and gun rights without govt regulations.

We can address this in two ways:
1. Either argue to treat LGBT as any other religious faith-based identity or following
so to argue to separate the values and beliefs from govt, the same way other faith-based groups
cannot establish their beliefs through govt for everyone else to recognize
2. or ask ALL OTHER groups that feel discriminated against to have the same freedom
NOT to be barred from recognizing their beliefs through govt

Either way, treat all faith based groups the same.

Either open the door for all of them to have special legislation and rights to protect their beliefs
from harassment infringement and discrimination by creed.

Or shut the door on this whole idea, and get ALL beliefs out of govt,
and perhaps set up separate policies and programs PER PARTY where those groups can
get what they want, but not implement that through govt without the consent of other parties and groups.

If States and State reps can bargain with each other, and get legislation passed
if they add benefits for this State or that State to get something out of the deal,
why can't Parties form their own governments to manage all the benefits they want to fund
among their own membership, and when it comes to national policy, the Parties can
meet and negotiate, and trade out getting different things into law where all the parties agree it's a fair deal.

Could we do it that way?
What do you think ding?

Would you like to start a Spiritual Senate
and ask peacemakers from each party
with visions how this could be done,
to come together and have a Constitutional Conference
on how to set up a peace and justice dept that
mediates between parties on areas of conflict over political beliefs?

Hello?

So then, why limit it to two people, right?

well, ding
for most insurance or work benefits, the structure is to have the employee and one primary beneficiary.
If there are 2 dependents, then do these have to be children. Can they be an elderly family member or
a sick brother who is dependent on the main caretaker?

If we take the social relationships out of the equation
and just stick to the numbers, 2 for the partnership, then add on 2 dependents on one tier,
or the option of 2 more on the next, and so on, we could agree to a uniform structure.

But then let people fill in those positions with anyone they want where they
don't have to be husband and wife, or children, but could be pets or someone's girlfriend or boyfriend,
or a god child, etc.

What I really think we could do better to manage all this,
is to organize it by party. So instead of theorizing what should or should not be the structure
that can be enforced uniformly, just leave it to the Parties to democratically decide among their
members that they represent and who pays into their coffers. So you get what you pay for
and what you vote for. It directly affects you, and doesn't depend on other people from outside your group. Only the likeminded members within a group agreeing to the same policy decide it.

 

[Faun]

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.

Hi ding Yes and no.

1. If you are talking about the SPIRITUAL marriage of "marrying the one you love"
yes this is discrimination to "ban a particular religious practice" that everyone remains free to do privately.
However, it's not for the state to endorse marriage as a spiritual practice for the same reason.
If it's part of religious freedom, govt should not be making laws anyway, one way or another, respecting a religious establishment. So this definition of marriage does not belong in state jurisdiction period.
Not unless all people in a state consent to a policy so there is equal inclusion and no discrimination
or imposition of bias that isn't approved by the people affected, since their religious freedom is involved.

2. If you take this same argument to its full conclusion, anyone should have the right to enter into a civil union or domestic partnership as a " business contract" with any other consenting legally competent adult.
So as other people are arguing, it's imposing a moral/subjective value to assume "marriage" has to be for procreation and thus banning family members from marrying, when they COULD form a partnership and ask for social benefits as primary partner and beneficiary secondary partner, and just not plan to bear any children together.

Technically, if any two people decide to run a household together, even if they don't plan to have kids or adopt the, why shouldn't they be eligible to declare themselves as primary and secondary beneficiaries when claiming benefits? Who says these two people have to be "husband and wife" or have kids together?

Another reason to rethink marriage, maybe leave the subjective rules and traditions to private interpretation and religious freedom; and just keep the "civil unions/domestic partnerships" as NEUTRAL contracts under the state that have no social conditions attached regarding any particular type of personal relationship between the two people -- but ONLY recognizing the legal and financial business agreements (this still can include legal guardianship, custody, executors, directives etc. and recognize legal authority without dictating anything to do with social status of personal relationships that people don't agree on)

BTW RE your other post, this is one area people have trouble being objective on, because they project so many of their personal issues and experiences onto this. So unfortunately it's very hard to stick to the legal objective part, and just preserve the "civil unions/domestic partnerships" and leave the rest to personal choice and freedom outside the govt realm.

Sexual orientation is not a class of people. It is a sexual preference. I could claim I was gay one day and straight the next and no one could prove otherwise on either day. So I don't see how we can consider a sexual preference a class of people. Secondly, as long as the limitation on marriage - which has always existed - is applied equally (i.e. regardless of sexual orientation) there can be no discrimination as there is an equal application of the law.

Marriage is a right. You cannot Constitutionally deny someone that right without a compelling interest. Gender is not a compelling interest.

 

[emilynghiem]

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.

Hi ding Yes and no.

1. If you are talking about the SPIRITUAL marriage of "marrying the one you love"
yes this is discrimination to "ban a particular religious practice" that everyone remains free to do privately.
However, it's not for the state to endorse marriage as a spiritual practice for the same reason.
If it's part of religious freedom, govt should not be making laws anyway, one way or another, respecting a religious establishment. So this definition of marriage does not belong in state jurisdiction period.
Not unless all people in a state consent to a policy so there is equal inclusion and no discrimination
or imposition of bias that isn't approved by the people affected, since their religious freedom is involved.

2. If you take this same argument to its full conclusion, anyone should have the right to enter into a civil union or domestic partnership as a " business contract" with any other consenting legally competent adult.
So as other people are arguing, it's imposing a moral/subjective value to assume "marriage" has to be for procreation and thus banning family members from marrying, when they COULD form a partnership and ask for social benefits as primary partner and beneficiary secondary partner, and just not plan to bear any children together.

Technically, if any two people decide to run a household together, even if they don't plan to have kids or adopt the, why shouldn't they be eligible to declare themselves as primary and secondary beneficiaries when claiming benefits? Who says these two people have to be "husband and wife" or have kids together?

Another reason to rethink marriage, maybe leave the subjective rules and traditions to private interpretation and religious freedom; and just keep the "civil unions/domestic partnerships" as NEUTRAL contracts under the state that have no social conditions attached regarding any particular type of personal relationship between the two people -- but ONLY recognizing the legal and financial business agreements (this still can include legal guardianship, custody, executors, directives etc. and recognize legal authority without dictating anything to do with social status of personal relationships that people don't agree on)

BTW RE your other post, this is one area people have trouble being objective on, because they project so many of their personal issues and experiences onto this. So unfortunately it's very hard to stick to the legal objective part, and just preserve the "civil unions/domestic partnerships" and leave the rest to personal choice and freedom outside the govt realm.

Sexual orientation is not a class of people. It is a sexual preference. I could claim I was gay one day and straight the next and no one could prove otherwise on either day. So I don't see how we can consider a sexual preference a class of people. Secondly, as long as the limitation on marriage - which has always existed - is applied equally (i.e. regardless of sexual orientation) there can be no discrimination as there is an equal application of the law.

Marriage is a right. You cannot Constitutionally deny someone that right without a compelling interest. Gender is not a compelling interest.

Preventing Discrimination by Creed is a compelling interest.

In order to enforce laws consistently, the same reason it is discriminatory to "impose beliefs through govt"
that ban gay marriage, it is still "imposing beliefs through govt" to ENDORSE gay marriage.
Govt should remain neutral and judges should have chalked up these cases as religious disputes
that the state marriage laws aren't written neutrally enough to accommodate.

So they should have ordered each state to rewrite their laws to be neutral and
NEITHER ESTABLISH NOR PROHIBIT
one form of marriage or another, but allow for civil unions as business contracts and not dictate the social relationships. Work it out where the population of that state AGREES the law represents what
they want, no more and no less, no adding in things like gay references they don't all believe in,
and no banning of it either since not everyone agrees with those beliefs either. But it must stay
neutral and represent all citizens of that state, or else REMOVE it from the state and divide by party
or allow it by religious affiliation. I suggest by party since some people don't have enough religious
members to afford benefits; but parties do.

Faun Skylar C_Clayton_Jones

 

[Faun]

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.

Hi ding Yes and no.

1. If you are talking about the SPIRITUAL marriage of "marrying the one you love"
yes this is discrimination to "ban a particular religious practice" that everyone remains free to do privately.
However, it's not for the state to endorse marriage as a spiritual practice for the same reason.
If it's part of religious freedom, govt should not be making laws anyway, one way or another, respecting a religious establishment. So this definition of marriage does not belong in state jurisdiction period.
Not unless all people in a state consent to a policy so there is equal inclusion and no discrimination
or imposition of bias that isn't approved by the people affected, since their religious freedom is involved.

2. If you take this same argument to its full conclusion, anyone should have the right to enter into a civil union or domestic partnership as a " business contract" with any other consenting legally competent adult.
So as other people are arguing, it's imposing a moral/subjective value to assume "marriage" has to be for procreation and thus banning family members from marrying, when they COULD form a partnership and ask for social benefits as primary partner and beneficiary secondary partner, and just not plan to bear any children together.

Technically, if any two people decide to run a household together, even if they don't plan to have kids or adopt the, why shouldn't they be eligible to declare themselves as primary and secondary beneficiaries when claiming benefits? Who says these two people have to be "husband and wife" or have kids together?

Another reason to rethink marriage, maybe leave the subjective rules and traditions to private interpretation and religious freedom; and just keep the "civil unions/domestic partnerships" as NEUTRAL contracts under the state that have no social conditions attached regarding any particular type of personal relationship between the two people -- but ONLY recognizing the legal and financial business agreements (this still can include legal guardianship, custody, executors, directives etc. and recognize legal authority without dictating anything to do with social status of personal relationships that people don't agree on)

BTW RE your other post, this is one area people have trouble being objective on, because they project so many of their personal issues and experiences onto this. So unfortunately it's very hard to stick to the legal objective part, and just preserve the "civil unions/domestic partnerships" and leave the rest to personal choice and freedom outside the govt realm.

Sexual orientation is not a class of people. It is a sexual preference. I could claim I was gay one day and straight the next and no one could prove otherwise on either day. So I don't see how we can consider a sexual preference a class of people. Secondly, as long as the limitation on marriage - which has always existed - is applied equally (i.e. regardless of sexual orientation) there can be no discrimination as there is an equal application of the law.

Marriage is a right. You cannot Constitutionally deny someone that right without a compelling interest. Gender is not a compelling interest.

Preventing Discrimination by Creed is a compelling interest.

In order to enforce laws consistently, the same reason it is discriminatory to "impose beliefs through govt"
that ban gay marriage, it is still "imposing beliefs through govt" to ENDORSE gay marriage.
Govt should remain neutral and judges should have chalked up these cases as religious disputes
that the state marriage laws aren't written neutrally enough to accommodate.

So they should have ordered each state to rewrite their laws to be neutral and
NEITHER ESTABLISH NOR PROHIBIT
one form of marriage or another, but allow for civil unions as business contracts and not dictate the social relationships. Work it out where the population of that state AGREES the law represents what
they want, no more and no less, no adding in things like gay references they don't all believe in,
and no banning of it either since not everyone agrees with those beliefs either. But it must stay
neutral and represent all citizens of that state, or else REMOVE it from the state and divide by party
or allow it by religious affiliation. I suggest by party since some people don't have enough religious
members to afford benefits; but parties do.

Faun Skylar C_Clayton_Jones

The government cannot, and does not, impose a ban on same-sex marriage bans instituted by churches. Churches, temples, mosques, etc., are still able to ban same-sex marriages; so there is no discrimination of creed. Same-sex marriages performed by the state are functions of the state and remain secular. There is no compelling interest based on gender to deny anyone their right to marry the person of their choice.

 

[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.

Hi ding Yes and no.

1. If you are talking about the SPIRITUAL marriage of "marrying the one you love"
yes this is discrimination to "ban a particular religious practice" that everyone remains free to do privately.
However, it's not for the state to endorse marriage as a spiritual practice for the same reason.
If it's part of religious freedom, govt should not be making laws anyway, one way or another, respecting a religious establishment. So this definition of marriage does not belong in state jurisdiction period.
Not unless all people in a state consent to a policy so there is equal inclusion and no discrimination
or imposition of bias that isn't approved by the people affected, since their religious freedom is involved.

2. If you take this same argument to its full conclusion, anyone should have the right to enter into a civil union or domestic partnership as a " business contract" with any other consenting legally competent adult.
So as other people are arguing, it's imposing a moral/subjective value to assume "marriage" has to be for procreation and thus banning family members from marrying, when they COULD form a partnership and ask for social benefits as primary partner and beneficiary secondary partner, and just not plan to bear any children together.

Technically, if any two people decide to run a household together, even if they don't plan to have kids or adopt the, why shouldn't they be eligible to declare themselves as primary and secondary beneficiaries when claiming benefits? Who says these two people have to be "husband and wife" or have kids together?

Another reason to rethink marriage, maybe leave the subjective rules and traditions to private interpretation and religious freedom; and just keep the "civil unions/domestic partnerships" as NEUTRAL contracts under the state that have no social conditions attached regarding any particular type of personal relationship between the two people -- but ONLY recognizing the legal and financial business agreements (this still can include legal guardianship, custody, executors, directives etc. and recognize legal authority without dictating anything to do with social status of personal relationships that people don't agree on)

BTW RE your other post, this is one area people have trouble being objective on, because they project so many of their personal issues and experiences onto this. So unfortunately it's very hard to stick to the legal objective part, and just preserve the "civil unions/domestic partnerships" and leave the rest to personal choice and freedom outside the govt realm.

Sexual orientation is not a class of people. It is a sexual preference. I could claim I was gay one day and straight the next and no one could prove otherwise on either day. So I don't see how we can consider a sexual preference a class of people. Secondly, as long as the limitation on marriage - which has always existed - is applied equally (i.e. regardless of sexual orientation) there can be no discrimination as there is an equal application of the law.

1. I would say to make it an equal application, all the social conditions have to be taken out and leave the neutral template that any two people can fill in, regardless what is their personal relationship with each other.

2. yes, I would treat "sexual orientation and gender identity" as someone chooses their "spiritual identity" or "political/religious affiliation"

I find that it is more an issue of spiritual process and path in life, and yes it can change.
This is not something for govt to try to dictate, or "label" govern and manage.

We do not have a separate class protecting people who identity as "Muslim or Anarchist"
who feel oppressed by predominant social standards influenced by Christian and
Constitutionalist traditions.

However, maybe we SHOULD demand equal treatment as the LGBT.

Maybe the Libertarians and Greens should declare they need "equal protection of the laws"
from discrimination by Republicans and Democrats.

Maybe the Constitutionalists who don't believe that Courts have authority to "create rights"
such as "right to marriage" and "right to health care" can argue this is discriminating
against equal political beliefs in "right to life [beginning at conception]" and gun rights without govt regulations.

We can address this in two ways:
1. Either argue to treat LGBT as any other religious faith-based identity or following
so to argue to separate the values and beliefs from govt, the same way other faith-based groups
cannot establish their beliefs through govt for everyone else to recognize
2. or ask ALL OTHER groups that feel discriminated against to have the same freedom
NOT to be barred from recognizing their beliefs through govt

Either way, treat all faith based groups the same.

Either open the door for all of them to have special legislation and rights to protect their beliefs
from harassment infringement and discrimination by creed.

Or shut the door on this whole idea, and get ALL beliefs out of govt,
and perhaps set up separate policies and programs PER PARTY where those groups can
get what they want, but not implement that through govt without the consent of other parties and groups.

If States and State reps can bargain with each other, and get legislation passed
if they add benefits for this State or that State to get something out of the deal,
why can't Parties form their own governments to manage all the benefits they want to fund
among their own membership, and when it comes to national policy, the Parties can
meet and negotiate, and trade out getting different things into law where all the parties agree it's a fair deal.

Could we do it that way?
What do you think ding?

Would you like to start a Spiritual Senate
and ask peacemakers from each party
with visions how this could be done,
to come together and have a Constitutional Conference
on how to set up a peace and justice dept that
mediates between parties on areas of conflict over political beliefs?

Hello?

So then, why limit it to two people, right?

well, ding
for most insurance or work benefits, the structure is to have the employee and one primary beneficiary.
If there are 2 dependents, then do these have to be children. Can they be an elderly family member or
a sick brother who is dependent on the main caretaker?

If we take the social relationships out of the equation
and just stick to the numbers, 2 for the partnership, then add on 2 dependents on one tier,
or the option of 2 more on the next, and so on, we could agree to a uniform structure.

But then let people fill in those positions with anyone they want where they
don't have to be husband and wife, or children, but could be pets or someone's girlfriend or boyfriend,
or a god child, etc.

What I really think we could do better to manage all this,
is to organize it by party. So instead of theorizing what should or should not be the structure
that can be enforced uniformly, just leave it to the Parties to democratically decide among their
members that they represent and who pays into their coffers. So you get what you pay for
and what you vote for. It directly affects you, and doesn't depend on other people from outside your group. Only the likeminded members within a group agreeing to the same policy decide it.

All of those things can be easily resolved though, right? It's just some computer coding change or a simple will, right? How about 4 people being married? Or 5? Or 6? Is there any number we should stop at?

 

[WinterBorn]

Hi ding Yes and no.

1. If you are talking about the SPIRITUAL marriage of "marrying the one you love"
yes this is discrimination to "ban a particular religious practice" that everyone remains free to do privately.
However, it's not for the state to endorse marriage as a spiritual practice for the same reason.
If it's part of religious freedom, govt should not be making laws anyway, one way or another, respecting a religious establishment. So this definition of marriage does not belong in state jurisdiction period.
Not unless all people in a state consent to a policy so there is equal inclusion and no discrimination
or imposition of bias that isn't approved by the people affected, since their religious freedom is involved.

2. If you take this same argument to its full conclusion, anyone should have the right to enter into a civil union or domestic partnership as a " business contract" with any other consenting legally competent adult.
So as other people are arguing, it's imposing a moral/subjective value to assume "marriage" has to be for procreation and thus banning family members from marrying, when they COULD form a partnership and ask for social benefits as primary partner and beneficiary secondary partner, and just not plan to bear any children together.

Technically, if any two people decide to run a household together, even if they don't plan to have kids or adopt the, why shouldn't they be eligible to declare themselves as primary and secondary beneficiaries when claiming benefits? Who says these two people have to be "husband and wife" or have kids together?

Another reason to rethink marriage, maybe leave the subjective rules and traditions to private interpretation and religious freedom; and just keep the "civil unions/domestic partnerships" as NEUTRAL contracts under the state that have no social conditions attached regarding any particular type of personal relationship between the two people -- but ONLY recognizing the legal and financial business agreements (this still can include legal guardianship, custody, executors, directives etc. and recognize legal authority without dictating anything to do with social status of personal relationships that people don't agree on)

BTW RE your other post, this is one area people have trouble being objective on, because they project so many of their personal issues and experiences onto this. So unfortunately it's very hard to stick to the legal objective part, and just preserve the "civil unions/domestic partnerships" and leave the rest to personal choice and freedom outside the govt realm.

Sexual orientation is not a class of people. It is a sexual preference. I could claim I was gay one day and straight the next and no one could prove otherwise on either day. So I don't see how we can consider a sexual preference a class of people. Secondly, as long as the limitation on marriage - which has always existed - is applied equally (i.e. regardless of sexual orientation) there can be no discrimination as there is an equal application of the law.

1. I would say to make it an equal application, all the social conditions have to be taken out and leave the neutral template that any two people can fill in, regardless what is their personal relationship with each other.

2. yes, I would treat "sexual orientation and gender identity" as someone chooses their "spiritual identity" or "political/religious affiliation"

I find that it is more an issue of spiritual process and path in life, and yes it can change.
This is not something for govt to try to dictate, or "label" govern and manage.

We do not have a separate class protecting people who identity as "Muslim or Anarchist"
who feel oppressed by predominant social standards influenced by Christian and
Constitutionalist traditions.

However, maybe we SHOULD demand equal treatment as the LGBT.

Maybe the Libertarians and Greens should declare they need "equal protection of the laws"
from discrimination by Republicans and Democrats.

Maybe the Constitutionalists who don't believe that Courts have authority to "create rights"
such as "right to marriage" and "right to health care" can argue this is discriminating
against equal political beliefs in "right to life [beginning at conception]" and gun rights without govt regulations.

We can address this in two ways:
1. Either argue to treat LGBT as any other religious faith-based identity or following
so to argue to separate the values and beliefs from govt, the same way other faith-based groups
cannot establish their beliefs through govt for everyone else to recognize
2. or ask ALL OTHER groups that feel discriminated against to have the same freedom
NOT to be barred from recognizing their beliefs through govt

Either way, treat all faith based groups the same.

Either open the door for all of them to have special legislation and rights to protect their beliefs
from harassment infringement and discrimination by creed.

Or shut the door on this whole idea, and get ALL beliefs out of govt,
and perhaps set up separate policies and programs PER PARTY where those groups can
get what they want, but not implement that through govt without the consent of other parties and groups.

If States and State reps can bargain with each other, and get legislation passed
if they add benefits for this State or that State to get something out of the deal,
why can't Parties form their own governments to manage all the benefits they want to fund
among their own membership, and when it comes to national policy, the Parties can
meet and negotiate, and trade out getting different things into law where all the parties agree it's a fair deal.

Could we do it that way?
What do you think ding?

Would you like to start a Spiritual Senate
and ask peacemakers from each party
with visions how this could be done,
to come together and have a Constitutional Conference
on how to set up a peace and justice dept that
mediates between parties on areas of conflict over political beliefs?

Hello?

So then, why limit it to two people, right?

well, ding
for most insurance or work benefits, the structure is to have the employee and one primary beneficiary.
If there are 2 dependents, then do these have to be children. Can they be an elderly family member or
a sick brother who is dependent on the main caretaker?

If we take the social relationships out of the equation
and just stick to the numbers, 2 for the partnership, then add on 2 dependents on one tier,
or the option of 2 more on the next, and so on, we could agree to a uniform structure.

But then let people fill in those positions with anyone they want where they
don't have to be husband and wife, or children, but could be pets or someone's girlfriend or boyfriend,
or a god child, etc.

What I really think we could do better to manage all this,
is to organize it by party. So instead of theorizing what should or should not be the structure
that can be enforced uniformly, just leave it to the Parties to democratically decide among their
members that they represent and who pays into their coffers. So you get what you pay for
and what you vote for. It directly affects you, and doesn't depend on other people from outside your group. Only the likeminded members within a group agreeing to the same policy decide it.

All of those things can be easily resolved though, right? It's just some computer coding change or a simple will, right? How about 4 people being married? Or 5? Or 6? Is there any number we should stop at?

I think it would be easier if we removed the gov't from the entire institution and be done with it.

 

[Skull Pilot]

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.

straight marriage is not a constitutional right either

 

[Faun]

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.

straight marriage is not a constitutional right either

Not all rights are defined in the Constitution. Marriage is a fundamental right.

 

[Skull Pilot]

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.

straight marriage is not a constitutional right either

Not all rights are defined in the Constitution. Marriage is a fundamental right.

So what? It is not a constitutional right as was stated

Marriage is nothing but a property contract

 

[emilynghiem]

Hi ding Yes and no.

1. If you are talking about the SPIRITUAL marriage of "marrying the one you love"
yes this is discrimination to "ban a particular religious practice" that everyone remains free to do privately.
However, it's not for the state to endorse marriage as a spiritual practice for the same reason.
If it's part of religious freedom, govt should not be making laws anyway, one way or another, respecting a religious establishment. So this definition of marriage does not belong in state jurisdiction period.
Not unless all people in a state consent to a policy so there is equal inclusion and no discrimination
or imposition of bias that isn't approved by the people affected, since their religious freedom is involved.

2. If you take this same argument to its full conclusion, anyone should have the right to enter into a civil union or domestic partnership as a " business contract" with any other consenting legally competent adult.
So as other people are arguing, it's imposing a moral/subjective value to assume "marriage" has to be for procreation and thus banning family members from marrying, when they COULD form a partnership and ask for social benefits as primary partner and beneficiary secondary partner, and just not plan to bear any children together.

Technically, if any two people decide to run a household together, even if they don't plan to have kids or adopt the, why shouldn't they be eligible to declare themselves as primary and secondary beneficiaries when claiming benefits? Who says these two people have to be "husband and wife" or have kids together?

Another reason to rethink marriage, maybe leave the subjective rules and traditions to private interpretation and religious freedom; and just keep the "civil unions/domestic partnerships" as NEUTRAL contracts under the state that have no social conditions attached regarding any particular type of personal relationship between the two people -- but ONLY recognizing the legal and financial business agreements (this still can include legal guardianship, custody, executors, directives etc. and recognize legal authority without dictating anything to do with social status of personal relationships that people don't agree on)

BTW RE your other post, this is one area people have trouble being objective on, because they project so many of their personal issues and experiences onto this. So unfortunately it's very hard to stick to the legal objective part, and just preserve the "civil unions/domestic partnerships" and leave the rest to personal choice and freedom outside the govt realm.

Sexual orientation is not a class of people. It is a sexual preference. I could claim I was gay one day and straight the next and no one could prove otherwise on either day. So I don't see how we can consider a sexual preference a class of people. Secondly, as long as the limitation on marriage - which has always existed - is applied equally (i.e. regardless of sexual orientation) there can be no discrimination as there is an equal application of the law.

1. I would say to make it an equal application, all the social conditions have to be taken out and leave the neutral template that any two people can fill in, regardless what is their personal relationship with each other.

2. yes, I would treat "sexual orientation and gender identity" as someone chooses their "spiritual identity" or "political/religious affiliation"

I find that it is more an issue of spiritual process and path in life, and yes it can change.
This is not something for govt to try to dictate, or "label" govern and manage.

We do not have a separate class protecting people who identity as "Muslim or Anarchist"
who feel oppressed by predominant social standards influenced by Christian and
Constitutionalist traditions.

However, maybe we SHOULD demand equal treatment as the LGBT.

Maybe the Libertarians and Greens should declare they need "equal protection of the laws"
from discrimination by Republicans and Democrats.

Maybe the Constitutionalists who don't believe that Courts have authority to "create rights"
such as "right to marriage" and "right to health care" can argue this is discriminating
against equal political beliefs in "right to life [beginning at conception]" and gun rights without govt regulations.

We can address this in two ways:
1. Either argue to treat LGBT as any other religious faith-based identity or following
so to argue to separate the values and beliefs from govt, the same way other faith-based groups
cannot establish their beliefs through govt for everyone else to recognize
2. or ask ALL OTHER groups that feel discriminated against to have the same freedom
NOT to be barred from recognizing their beliefs through govt

Either way, treat all faith based groups the same.

Either open the door for all of them to have special legislation and rights to protect their beliefs
from harassment infringement and discrimination by creed.

Or shut the door on this whole idea, and get ALL beliefs out of govt,
and perhaps set up separate policies and programs PER PARTY where those groups can
get what they want, but not implement that through govt without the consent of other parties and groups.

If States and State reps can bargain with each other, and get legislation passed
if they add benefits for this State or that State to get something out of the deal,
why can't Parties form their own governments to manage all the benefits they want to fund
among their own membership, and when it comes to national policy, the Parties can
meet and negotiate, and trade out getting different things into law where all the parties agree it's a fair deal.

Could we do it that way?
What do you think ding?

Would you like to start a Spiritual Senate
and ask peacemakers from each party
with visions how this could be done,
to come together and have a Constitutional Conference
on how to set up a peace and justice dept that
mediates between parties on areas of conflict over political beliefs?

Hello?

So then, why limit it to two people, right?

well, ding
for most insurance or work benefits, the structure is to have the employee and one primary beneficiary.
If there are 2 dependents, then do these have to be children. Can they be an elderly family member or
a sick brother who is dependent on the main caretaker?

If we take the social relationships out of the equation
and just stick to the numbers, 2 for the partnership, then add on 2 dependents on one tier,
or the option of 2 more on the next, and so on, we could agree to a uniform structure.

But then let people fill in those positions with anyone they want where they
don't have to be husband and wife, or children, but could be pets or someone's girlfriend or boyfriend,
or a god child, etc.

What I really think we could do better to manage all this,
is to organize it by party. So instead of theorizing what should or should not be the structure
that can be enforced uniformly, just leave it to the Parties to democratically decide among their
members that they represent and who pays into their coffers. So you get what you pay for
and what you vote for. It directly affects you, and doesn't depend on other people from outside your group. Only the likeminded members within a group agreeing to the same policy decide it.

All of those things can be easily resolved though, right? It's just some computer coding change or a simple will, right? How about 4 people being married? Or 5? Or 6? Is there any number we should stop at?

Dear ding And who says we need to stop at one marriage policy for all?
Do we have one state religion for all?
To have enough numbers per group to support collective benefits, that's why I suggest either going through religious affiliation or political party to set up terms for social benefits welfare etc.

Then ppl can elect their own terms.
Sure if you want to support the Poly crowd I know someone with a whole network of poly couples. If you organize enough ppl under one policy then you can create your own LLC and follow your own rules for benefits. I think this is good education training and experience also. If ppl learn to manage their own resources this is empowering and they can lead rather than follow, and not feel like victims to other ppl decisions they can't control.

It changes the whole dynamic toward self reliance and self govt, by mentoring and investing in ppl to organize their own plans and resources. If two groups are too small to support benefits, then they need to learn conflict resolution and diversity management to team up with another small group so they can have the collective resources of larger groups.

What groups are you with ding
I have friends willing to propose this in Texas to set up separate tracks by party. Where are you on the map?

 

[DOTR]

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.

Wrong.

Marriage is the union of two equal, consenting adult partners not related to each other in a committed relationship recognized by the state – same- or opposite-sex.

Same-sex couples are eligible to enter into marriage contracts because they meet those qualifications, and to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law they’re eligible to participate in for no other reason than being gay violates the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the 14th Amendment (see Obergefell v. Hodges (2015)).

I wonder how did Oliver Wendell Holmes, Earl Warren, William Brennan, Hugo Black, Ulysses Grant, William Kennedy, Teddy Roosevelt all miss this? I wonder why when the fourteenth amendment was ramrodded onto the states they didn't immediately begin same sex marriage. I wonder why I see no mention of marriage whatsoever in the debates regarding the 14th amendment. I think I know the answer. It was invented in the 21st century, promulgated by amoral celebrities and enforced by raw power of those seeking special interest votes.

Because back in the days of the men you listed, homosexuals were shunned, if not killed. We have moved beyond that. Just because someone is attracted to the same gender does not make them subhuman.

Homosexuals are still shunned. But it was always illegal to kill anyone. Even homosexuals. Another lie.

You haven't read the Old Testament have you.

Great...another Bible thumper.

 

[DOTR]

Marriage is the union of two equal, consenting adult partners not related to each other in a committed relationship recognized by the state – same- or opposite-sex.

Same-sex couples are eligible to enter into marriage contracts because they meet those qualifications, and to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law they’re eligible to participate in for no other reason than being gay violates the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the 14th Amendment (see Obergefell v. Hodges (2015)).

Marriage is the union of a man and a woman.

Marriage is a union between a man and woman, or a man and several women, or a man and a man or a woman and a woman.

Here in the United States we only recognized unions between couples- in other countries it can include a man and several women- and that tradition goes back way beyond the United States.

No western country did. Because ultimately it is western values under attack as expressed by the US and UK. The "other countries" you speak of are backwards Muslim or primitive tribal societies. And might I add that anywhere it includes a man and several women the women are mere chattel.
Besides simply attacking Americans what is the allure of backwards non christian societies for liberals?

What is the allure for you in kicking puppies?

There is no 'allure' in pointing out the facts- and the facts are that polygamy is as old as marriage. It even existed in the Bible.

But I am glad you mentioned 'chattel' because historically women in Western until recently were chattel- to their fathers first, and then to their husbands.

Marriage law changed over time so women were no longer chattel because Western society had matured and no longer considered women to be second class citizens. Just as Western society has matured so that we no longer consider homosexuals to be second class citizens- unlike those backwards Muslim or primitive tribal societies

Why are Conservatives against marriage law changing to reflect our mature society and want our marriage laws to be more like those backwards Muslim or primitive tribal societies?

Government force does not change society. That is the tail wagging the dog. It is the government which fears change by society. That is one reason immigration is pushed by Democraps...when the government fears it may be changed by the people it moves to change the people first. Or to corrupt them. Or buy them. Whatever it takes. Exemplified by Hillary Clinton calling on Donald Trump to reject "deplorable voters". Her belief that she chooses the voter ,rather than vice versa, is deeply ingrained. Or her complaint that Trump puts American citizens before foreign non citizens (potential voters in her eyes).
When society, the people, mature (or regress) then they will pass laws reflecting that. But they won't need to be disenfranchised and dragged towards anything.
Your lie is exposed by that very simple fact.

 

[DOTR]

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.

Already been tried. The people of this country were very very plain in their distaste for homosexual marriage licenses. They were overruled. The elites decided they knew better. And the political environment is rigged heavily in their favor. There really is no recourse for citizens at this point except for Trump.

 

[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.

straight marriage is not a constitutional right either

Not all rights are defined in the Constitution. Marriage is a fundamental right.

Right to a funeral is that a fundamental right or is it under religious freedom.

Also Faun ppl interpret Right to Life as a fundamental Constitutional right. It's even in the founding documents.

Why is there discrimination when the Right to Life advocates lobby to incorporate and recognize that?

If you don't believe in right to life beginning at conception so that you block laws from recognizing this, why can't ppl who don't believe in marriage including gay couples block laws recognizing that.

If it's violating separation of church and state for the govt to endorse the faith based concept that human consciousness begins at conception, why isn't it a violation for govt to endorse gay marriage and homosexual relations as natural which is also a faith based choice.

Shouldn't we be fair to both beliefs and keep both out of govt and let ppl decide. Sure we strike down bans on gay marriage the same way bans were struck down on abortion; laws cannot be biased by faith based arguments.

So why isn't this standard enforced for beliefs about homosexuality and gay marriage? If we wouldn't legislate right to life through got institutions out of respect for other beliefs in opposition, but we expect "right to life to Practice in Private"

Why shouldn't All marriage be practiced in private so ppl. Can have the policy of their spiritual choice without govt endorsing one belief or another?

Just have govt recognize neutral civil unions and domestic partnerships COMPLETELY VOID of ANY BELIEFS Whatsoever. Isn't that secular and neutral.

While right to marriage is a political belief like right to life and is faith based and NOT NEUTRAL. Both are biased by beliefs that ppl hold sacred. Both can be protected equally under Free Exercise of religion. But if govt endorses political beliefs how can both sides be equally protected.

 

[emilynghiem]

[d (2) are aimed at weakening marriage.

Hmmmm so couples wanting to get married- are aiming at weakening marriage?

How was your marriage weakened because Joe and Jim can get married now?

Syriusly
What was weakened was Constitutional standards against judicial powers stretched into matters of personal spiritual and poltical beliefs that should be individual choice under religious freedom and state neutrality and or "creating rights" that belong to legislative and Constitutional amendments.

Cruz and the Tea Party can challenge and fix this. Too bad Trump threw him under the bus but good for Clinton who needed that. Maybe God set this up so America would have our first woman President.

Cruz trump and sanders still need to lead the working taxpayers to fix the messes of govt that Clinton and the limousine liberals make money off as career politicians who only care about elections and office.

The ppl are still left to do all the work to fix problems.

Including teaching Constitutional law to all the ppl hoodwinked into thinking the govt controls ppl and policy and ppl depend on govt instead of the reality that it's the other way around. Taxpayers have been footing the bill for freeloaders who get better health care than the taxpayers who paid trillions in dollars to corporate insurance under ACA.

What a mess.

This thread shows me how many ppl still live by the belief that laws are decided top down by govt in Washington instead of the Constitution as a social contract where govt is supposed to represent the consent of the ppl and not dictate beliefs or manage social programs and benefits that belong to local states.

How do I get out of this nightmare.
How many liberals don't recognize their political beliefs about right to health care and right to marriage are beliefs just like right to life and gun rights.

Where are the self aware liberals who recognize the biases in beliefs are mutual on both sides. And if you are going to lobby one side through govt, and not respect free choice and consent of the governed, then what's to stop right to life from being pushed through govt against free choice and consent of others who don't share those beliefs either.

 

[Syriusly]

[d (2) are aimed at weakening marriage.

Hmmmm so couples wanting to get married- are aiming at weakening marriage?

How was your marriage weakened because Joe and Jim can get married now?

Syriusly
What was weakened was Constitutional standards against judicial powers stretched into matters of personal spiritual and poltical beliefs that should be individual choice under religious freedom and state neutrality .

Laws against same gender marriage violated individual choice under religious freedom.