Gay marriage is not a constitutional right

[C_Clayton_Jones]

“Since gays cannot make children…”

Actually, gay Americans can have children.

There are opposite-sex couples who cannot have children because either the man or woman is infertile, yet they are not prohibited to marry.

Consequently, the ability to procreate is not a legitimate criterion for marriage eligibility, and is not ‘justification’ to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law, in violation of the Constitution.

 

[emilynghiem]

Great- so we agree that Americans who are gay- or Muslim- should be treated equally before the law.

And that gay Americans have just as much of a legal right to marry who they want to- as Muslim Americans have the right to marry who they want to.

Nope, it's like going through govt to get it established that Muslims have the right to pray to Allah
because otherwise they are persecuted by Christians who only believe in praying to God through Jesus.

You already have the right to pray to whoever you want IN PRIVATE
but it's not the authority of GOVT to recognize if this is to Allah.

The right to prayer and the right to marriage are both under religious freedom.

That's fine if you want to open the door for Christians to claim the right
to prayer as part of govt function also. I'm sure they'd consider a trade off!

Not true at all. The right to marry is a right largely due to the rights of life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness. Those are not rights exclusive for the religious. All people, religious or not, are free to enjoy those rights. More to the point, marriage is a right enjoyed by millions of people who are not religious. Their right to marriage is no less secure than those who are religious.

But they have the same right to marry. What they are seeking are special rights.

Wrong.

The states violated the Constitution by enacting illegal measures hostile to gay Americans, same-sex couples seeking relief from those un-Constitutional measures in the courts is not to advocate for ‘special rights,’ but to compel the states’ to acknowledge rights which have always existed, consistent with the 14th Amendment.

No one is being hostile to anyone. What we have here is a difference of opinion. That's not hostility. If anyone is being hostile, it is the pro-homosexual crowd who brands anyone who disagrees with them as bigots and haters just because they have a difference of opinion.

Thank you ding and C_Clayton_Jones
and may I also add
the Christian and anti-gay lobby is not without fault
but equally guilty of the "bad karma and relations"
that are historically hostile between the two.

The problem that both sides have difficulty coming to grips with
is both are right and both are wrong
* yes there are some people for which homosexuality is a choice
and it can be changed and/or has changed
* yes there are some people for which it is NOT a choice,
natural or not naturally, and it cannot be changed

So both are going on.

The ones most hostile take one side and discount the other as invalid.

The ones most accepting and forgiving
RECOGNIZE there are both types of cases going on
and these cannot be painted, either way, with the same broad brush
* people who can change
* people who cannot

Thanks CCJ and Ding and others for addressing this.
Love and hugs and THANKS!!!

 

[Faun]

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

Yes! I AGREE with you Syriusly.
That's why it should be protected -- under religious freedom.

Muslims also get persecuted despite religious freedom.

Do Muslims pass "special laws" protecting MUSLIMS as a class?
No, they are already protected under religious freedom, and people
need to learn to respect that.

Great- so we agree that Americans who are gay- or Muslim- should be treated equally before the law.

And that gay Americans have just as much of a legal right to marry who they want to- as Muslim Americans have the right to marry who they want to.

Nope, it's like going through govt to get it established that Muslims have the right to pray to Allah
because otherwise they are persecuted by Christians who only believe in praying to God through Jesus.

You already have the right to pray to whoever you want IN PRIVATE
but it's not the authority of GOVT to recognize if this is to Allah.

The right to prayer and the right to marriage are both under religious freedom.

That's fine if you want to open the door for Christians to claim the right
to prayer as part of govt function also. I'm sure they'd consider a trade off!

Not true at all. The right to marry is a right largely due to the rights of life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness. Those are not rights exclusive for the religious. All people, religious or not, are free to enjoy those rights. More to the point, marriage is a right enjoyed by millions of people who are not religious. Their right to marriage is no less secure than those who are religious.

But they have the same right to marry. What they are seeking are special rights.

You say that as though Obergfell never happened. That aside, they did not have the same right to marry as heterosexuals, Before Obergfell, heterosexuals had the right to marry the person they wanted to spend the rest of their life with, pursuant to their unalienable rights that the government cannot abolish. Homosexuals were being denied that same fundamental right.

Hence Obergfell.

 

[Faun]

The states may decide all manner of issues for themselves, provided any decision that manifest as compelling law is consistent with the Constitution and its case law, and that any law or measure enacted by the states repugnant to the Constitution is appropriately invalidated – such as laws and measures seeking to deny same-sex couples their 14th Amendment right to access marriage law.

That would be a misapplication of the 14th Amendment. Of course it's not the first time the 14th Amendment has been misapplied it has been misapplied to the establishment clause as well. When the 14th Amendment was written, blacks were being denied marriage period. That was discrimination. All men and women today have the right to be married. People who have a sexual preference to have sex with the same gender still have the right to be married. Just because they are limited to marrying someone from the opposite sex doesn't mean they are being prevented from marrying as the blacks at the time the 14th Amendment was ratified.

WTF??

Exactly what is it about marriage that you think makes it a right?

 

[DOTR]

Yes! I AGREE with you Syriusly.
That's why it should be protected -- under religious freedom.

Muslims also get persecuted despite religious freedom.

Do Muslims pass "special laws" protecting MUSLIMS as a class?
No, they are already protected under religious freedom, and people
need to learn to respect that.

Great- so we agree that Americans who are gay- or Muslim- should be treated equally before the law.

And that gay Americans have just as much of a legal right to marry who they want to- as Muslim Americans have the right to marry who they want to.

Nope, it's like going through govt to get it established that Muslims have the right to pray to Allah
because otherwise they are persecuted by Christians who only believe in praying to God through Jesus.

You already have the right to pray to whoever you want IN PRIVATE
but it's not the authority of GOVT to recognize if this is to Allah.

The right to prayer and the right to marriage are both under religious freedom.

That's fine if you want to open the door for Christians to claim the right
to prayer as part of govt function also. I'm sure they'd consider a trade off!

Not true at all. The right to marry is a right largely due to the rights of life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness. Those are not rights exclusive for the religious. All people, religious or not, are free to enjoy those rights. More to the point, marriage is a right enjoyed by millions of people who are not religious. Their right to marriage is no less secure than those who are religious.

But they have the same right to marry. What they are seeking are special rights.

They want the right to marry the consenting adult that they love. And Love is the basis for marriage.

"the consenting adult"? You bigot I thought you said 14 men should be able to marry as a group.

 

[DOTR]

Yes! I AGREE with you Syriusly.
That's why it should be protected -- under religious freedom.

Muslims also get persecuted despite religious freedom.

Do Muslims pass "special laws" protecting MUSLIMS as a class?
No, they are already protected under religious freedom, and people
need to learn to respect that.

Great- so we agree that Americans who are gay- or Muslim- should be treated equally before the law.

And that gay Americans have just as much of a legal right to marry who they want to- as Muslim Americans have the right to marry who they want to.

Nope, it's like going through govt to get it established that Muslims have the right to pray to Allah
because otherwise they are persecuted by Christians who only believe in praying to God through Jesus.

You already have the right to pray to whoever you want IN PRIVATE
but it's not the authority of GOVT to recognize if this is to Allah.

The right to prayer and the right to marriage are both under religious freedom.

That's fine if you want to open the door for Christians to claim the right
to prayer as part of govt function also. I'm sure they'd consider a trade off!

Not true at all. The right to marry is a right largely due to the rights of life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness. Those are not rights exclusive for the religious. All people, religious or not, are free to enjoy those rights. More to the point, marriage is a right enjoyed by millions of people who are not religious. Their right to marriage is no less secure than those who are religious.

But they have the same right to marry. What they are seeking are special rights.

You say that as though Obergfell never happened. That aside, they did not have the same right to marry as heterosexuals, Before Obergfell, heterosexuals had the right to marry the person they wanted to spend the rest of their life with, pursuant to their unalienable rights that the government cannot abolish. Homosexuals were being denied that same fundamental right.

Hence Obergfell.

They had exactly the same right. To marry a person of the opposite sex.

 

[DOTR]

"Keep the government out of my bedroom!. And I demand the government give me a license for my bedroom!"

 

[ding]

Yes! I AGREE with you Syriusly.
That's why it should be protected -- under religious freedom.

Muslims also get persecuted despite religious freedom.

Do Muslims pass "special laws" protecting MUSLIMS as a class?
No, they are already protected under religious freedom, and people
need to learn to respect that.

Great- so we agree that Americans who are gay- or Muslim- should be treated equally before the law.

And that gay Americans have just as much of a legal right to marry who they want to- as Muslim Americans have the right to marry who they want to.

Nope, it's like going through govt to get it established that Muslims have the right to pray to Allah
because otherwise they are persecuted by Christians who only believe in praying to God through Jesus.

You already have the right to pray to whoever you want IN PRIVATE
but it's not the authority of GOVT to recognize if this is to Allah.

The right to prayer and the right to marriage are both under religious freedom.

That's fine if you want to open the door for Christians to claim the right
to prayer as part of govt function also. I'm sure they'd consider a trade off!

Not true at all. The right to marry is a right largely due to the rights of life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness. Those are not rights exclusive for the religious. All people, religious or not, are free to enjoy those rights. More to the point, marriage is a right enjoyed by millions of people who are not religious. Their right to marriage is no less secure than those who are religious.

But they have the same right to marry. What they are seeking are special rights.

You say that as though Obergfell never happened. That aside, they did not have the same right to marry as heterosexuals, Before Obergfell, heterosexuals had the right to marry the person they wanted to spend the rest of their life with, pursuant to their unalienable rights that the government cannot abolish. Homosexuals were being denied that same fundamental right.

Hence Obergfell.

No. I say that because they ARE seeking special rights. I don't care about what the courts say. The courst said that black people were property to be disposed of at the will of its owner. Why would I care about what the courts say. Common sense tell us that all men and women can be married. This isn't like after the Civil War when blacks could not get married. That was discrimination.

 

[ding]

Nope, it's like going through govt to get it established that Muslims have the right to pray to Allah
because otherwise they are persecuted by Christians who only believe in praying to God through Jesus.

You already have the right to pray to whoever you want IN PRIVATE
but it's not the authority of GOVT to recognize if this is to Allah.

The right to prayer and the right to marriage are both under religious freedom.

That's fine if you want to open the door for Christians to claim the right
to prayer as part of govt function also. I'm sure they'd consider a trade off!

Not true at all. The right to marry is a right largely due to the rights of life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness. Those are not rights exclusive for the religious. All people, religious or not, are free to enjoy those rights. More to the point, marriage is a right enjoyed by millions of people who are not religious. Their right to marriage is no less secure than those who are religious.

But they have the same right to marry. What they are seeking are special rights.

Wrong.

The states violated the Constitution by enacting illegal measures hostile to gay Americans, same-sex couples seeking relief from those un-Constitutional measures in the courts is not to advocate for ‘special rights,’ but to compel the states’ to acknowledge rights which have always existed, consistent with the 14th Amendment.

No one is being hostile to anyone. What we have here is a difference of opinion. That's not hostility. If anyone is being hostile, it is the pro-homosexual crowd who brands anyone who disagrees with them as bigots and haters just because they have a difference of opinion.

Thank you ding and C_Clayton_Jones
and may I also add
the Christian and anti-gay lobby is not without fault
but equally guilty of the "bad karma and relations"
that are historically hostile between the two.

The problem that both sides have difficulty coming to grips with
is both are right and both are wrong
* yes there are some people for which homosexuality is a choice
and it can be changed and/or has changed
* yes there are some people for which it is NOT a choice,
natural or not naturally, and it cannot be changed

So both are going on.

The ones most hostile take one side and discount the other as invalid.

The ones most accepting and forgiving
RECOGNIZE there are both types of cases going on
and these cannot be painted, either way, with the same broad brush
* people who can change
* people who cannot

Thanks CCJ and Ding and others for addressing this.
Love and hugs and THANKS!!!

Thank you. I am happy to particulate in the conflict and confusion process. At the end of the day, error cannot stand. Error will eventually fail. I'm happy enough to wait for that day. Everything will work itself out.... eventually.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Great- so we agree that Americans who are gay- or Muslim- should be treated equally before the law.

And that gay Americans have just as much of a legal right to marry who they want to- as Muslim Americans have the right to marry who they want to.

Nope, it's like going through govt to get it established that Muslims have the right to pray to Allah
because otherwise they are persecuted by Christians who only believe in praying to God through Jesus.

You already have the right to pray to whoever you want IN PRIVATE
but it's not the authority of GOVT to recognize if this is to Allah.

The right to prayer and the right to marriage are both under religious freedom.

That's fine if you want to open the door for Christians to claim the right
to prayer as part of govt function also. I'm sure they'd consider a trade off!

Not true at all. The right to marry is a right largely due to the rights of life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness. Those are not rights exclusive for the religious. All people, religious or not, are free to enjoy those rights. More to the point, marriage is a right enjoyed by millions of people who are not religious. Their right to marriage is no less secure than those who are religious.

But they have the same right to marry. What they are seeking are special rights.

You say that as though Obergfell never happened. That aside, they did not have the same right to marry as heterosexuals, Before Obergfell, heterosexuals had the right to marry the person they wanted to spend the rest of their life with, pursuant to their unalienable rights that the government cannot abolish. Homosexuals were being denied that same fundamental right.

Hence Obergfell.

They had exactly the same right. To marry a person of the opposite sex.

But not a person of the same-sex, which marriage law allows them to do.

Denying same-sex couples access to marriage laws they’re eligible to participate in for no other reason than being gay violates the 14th Amendment:

“The right to marry is a fundamental right inherent in the liberty of the person, and under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment couples of the same-sex may not be deprived of that right and that liberty. Same-sex couples may exercise the fundamental right to marry.”

OBERGEFELL v. HODGES

 

[ding]

But not a person of the same-sex, which marriage law allows them to do.

Denying same-sex couples access to marriage laws they’re eligible to participate in for no other reason than being gay violates the 14th Amendment:

“The right to marry is a fundamental right inherent in the liberty of the person, and under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment couples of the same-sex may not be deprived of that right and that liberty. Same-sex couples may exercise the fundamental right to marry.”

OBERGEFELL v. HODGES

That would be a misapplication of the 14th Amendment. Of course it's not the first time the 14th Amendment has been misapplied it has been misapplied to the establishment clause as well. When the 14th Amendment was written, blacks were being denied marriage period. That was discrimination. All men and women today have the right to be married. People who have a sexual preference to have sex with the same gender still have the right to be married. Just because they are limited to marrying someone from the opposite sex doesn't mean they are being prevented from marrying as the blacks were at the time the 14th Amendment was ratified.

 

[WinterBorn]

Great- so we agree that Americans who are gay- or Muslim- should be treated equally before the law.

And that gay Americans have just as much of a legal right to marry who they want to- as Muslim Americans have the right to marry who they want to.

Nope, it's like going through govt to get it established that Muslims have the right to pray to Allah
because otherwise they are persecuted by Christians who only believe in praying to God through Jesus.

You already have the right to pray to whoever you want IN PRIVATE
but it's not the authority of GOVT to recognize if this is to Allah.

The right to prayer and the right to marriage are both under religious freedom.

That's fine if you want to open the door for Christians to claim the right
to prayer as part of govt function also. I'm sure they'd consider a trade off!

Not true at all. The right to marry is a right largely due to the rights of life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness. Those are not rights exclusive for the religious. All people, religious or not, are free to enjoy those rights. More to the point, marriage is a right enjoyed by millions of people who are not religious. Their right to marriage is no less secure than those who are religious.

But they have the same right to marry. What they are seeking are special rights.

They want the right to marry the consenting adult that they love. And Love is the basis for marriage.

"the consenting adult"? You bigot I thought you said 14 men should be able to marry as a group.

I said I didn't care if they did. No bigotry. "Consenting adult" is always assumed.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Great- so we agree that Americans who are gay- or Muslim- should be treated equally before the law.

And that gay Americans have just as much of a legal right to marry who they want to- as Muslim Americans have the right to marry who they want to.

Nope, it's like going through govt to get it established that Muslims have the right to pray to Allah
because otherwise they are persecuted by Christians who only believe in praying to God through Jesus.

You already have the right to pray to whoever you want IN PRIVATE
but it's not the authority of GOVT to recognize if this is to Allah.

The right to prayer and the right to marriage are both under religious freedom.

That's fine if you want to open the door for Christians to claim the right
to prayer as part of govt function also. I'm sure they'd consider a trade off!

Not true at all. The right to marry is a right largely due to the rights of life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness. Those are not rights exclusive for the religious. All people, religious or not, are free to enjoy those rights. More to the point, marriage is a right enjoyed by millions of people who are not religious. Their right to marriage is no less secure than those who are religious.

But they have the same right to marry. What they are seeking are special rights.

You say that as though Obergfell never happened. That aside, they did not have the same right to marry as heterosexuals, Before Obergfell, heterosexuals had the right to marry the person they wanted to spend the rest of their life with, pursuant to their unalienable rights that the government cannot abolish. Homosexuals were being denied that same fundamental right.

Hence Obergfell.

No. I say that because they ARE seeking special rights. I don't care about what the courts say. The courst said that black people were property to be disposed of at the will of its owner. Why would I care about what the courts say. Common sense tell us that all men and women can be married. This isn't like after the Civil War when blacks could not get married. That was discrimination.

Again, this is nonsense – no one is seeking ‘special rights’; indeed, there is no such thing as ‘special rights.’

For example, if a state were to pass a law prohibiting Asian-Americans from marrying, the same Constitutional principle would apply, and such a measure would be just as much a violation of the 14th Amendment as seeking to deny gay Americans access to marriage law.

The states cannot disadvantage a given class of persons for no other reason than who they are – to do so would violate the same Equal Protection and Due Process rights afforded to every citizen, regardless who they are, Asian-American or gay American.

 

[ding]

Again, this is nonsense – no one is seeking ‘special rights’; indeed, there is no such thing as ‘special rights.’

For example, if a state were to pass a law prohibiting Asian-Americans from marrying, the same Constitutional principle would apply, and such a measure would be just as much a violation of the 14th Amendment as seeking to deny gay Americans access to marriage law.

The states cannot disadvantage a given class of persons for no other reason than who they are – to do so would violate the same Equal Protection and Due Process rights afforded to every citizen, regardless who they are, Asian-American or gay American.

Again? You never responded to it the first time. The 14th Amendment was written because Democrats were denying blacks the right to marry. Period. A black man could not marry a black woman. That was discrimination because the law was not applied equally. Fast forward to today. People who prefer to have sex with the same gender are not being denied the right to marriage. They can get married just like everyone else. The same limitation that is applied (i.e. one man and one woman) applies equally to everyone.

 

[ding]

I think you all need to face the reality that people who prefer to have sex with the same gender are seeking special rights.

 

[emilynghiem]

Great- so we agree that Americans who are gay- or Muslim- should be treated equally before the law.

And that gay Americans have just as much of a legal right to marry who they want to- as Muslim Americans have the right to marry who they want to.

Nope, it's like going through govt to get it established that Muslims have the right to pray to Allah
because otherwise they are persecuted by Christians who only believe in praying to God through Jesus.

You already have the right to pray to whoever you want IN PRIVATE
but it's not the authority of GOVT to recognize if this is to Allah.

The right to prayer and the right to marriage are both under religious freedom.

That's fine if you want to open the door for Christians to claim the right
to prayer as part of govt function also. I'm sure they'd consider a trade off!

Not true at all. The right to marry is a right largely due to the rights of life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness. Those are not rights exclusive for the religious. All people, religious or not, are free to enjoy those rights. More to the point, marriage is a right enjoyed by millions of people who are not religious. Their right to marriage is no less secure than those who are religious.

But they have the same right to marry. What they are seeking are special rights.

You say that as though Obergfell never happened. That aside, they did not have the same right to marry as heterosexuals, Before Obergfell, heterosexuals had the right to marry the person they wanted to spend the rest of their life with, pursuant to their unalienable rights that the government cannot abolish. Homosexuals were being denied that same fundamental right.

Hence Obergfell.

No. I say that because they ARE seeking special rights. I don't care about what the courts say. The courst said that black people were property to be disposed of at the will of its owner. Why would I care about what the courts say. Common sense tell us that all men and women can be married. This isn't like after the Civil War when blacks could not get married. That was discrimination.

Dear ding
It was discrimination when whites and blacks could not marry each other.
But they could both marry (as men and women pairs) as long as they weren't black/white mixed race.

The problem here is gender orientation is
NOT THE SAME AS RACE

No one has ever changed race, back and forth, by coming out,
or by healing and then changing, as with orientation and gender identity.

Physical gender is determined by genetics like race.
Now if you go into "spiritual identity" beyond what is physical,
that is FAITH BASED unlike race that is genetic.

Again I compare this with
* defining life legally as being recognized by BIRTH
vs.
* recognizing life spiritually and consciousness/will/identity
at conception or some other FAITH based point

For legal reasons, we draw the line at BIRTH.
And with Gender, states like Texas recognize BIRTH gender as the LEGAL definition.

If people want it changed to something else,
then if that criteria is FAITH BASED
then the govt cannot dictate that for the people.
The people must consent to any FAITH based policy.
If people contest a FAITH based bias, then the state
should remove that, to be consistent.

Same with BELIEFS if someone is homosexual as
an IDENTITY or if homosexuality is only a choice of BEHAVIOR.

Since this is FAITH BASED, again
govt cannot decide such a policy for people
or it is ESTABLISHING A BELIEF.

That is not the authority of govt to do so.

Skylar has argued that the whole system and
history of the country is a battle of political beliefs
and fighting to establish one or another by majority rule.

I am saying if people CONSENTED to that, such
as when people USED to consent to marriage laws being man/woman only,
then it is accepted UP TO THAT POINT

But when people clearly establish they do NOT agree
then it is NOT constitutional to bypass and ignore the beliefs
being violated and make laws anyway.

Thus it was NOT fully constitutional for
* gay marriage bans to be passed by majority rule where
half the population of states were objecting by their beliefs
* right to marriage or endorsing same sex marriage
through states where half the population objects by their beliefs

Marriage policies involve beliefs.
Trying to take shortcuts and force a policy by majority rule is stll not going to be accepted because of
clashing beliefs.

The root issues still need to be addressed, before policies can be established that will stand as truly representing the public. There are no shortcuts. The laws will need to be reworked until all parties feel equaly represented in public policy without discrimination.

 

[ding]

Nope, it's like going through govt to get it established that Muslims have the right to pray to Allah
because otherwise they are persecuted by Christians who only believe in praying to God through Jesus.

You already have the right to pray to whoever you want IN PRIVATE
but it's not the authority of GOVT to recognize if this is to Allah.

The right to prayer and the right to marriage are both under religious freedom.

That's fine if you want to open the door for Christians to claim the right
to prayer as part of govt function also. I'm sure they'd consider a trade off!

Not true at all. The right to marry is a right largely due to the rights of life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness. Those are not rights exclusive for the religious. All people, religious or not, are free to enjoy those rights. More to the point, marriage is a right enjoyed by millions of people who are not religious. Their right to marriage is no less secure than those who are religious.

But they have the same right to marry. What they are seeking are special rights.

You say that as though Obergfell never happened. That aside, they did not have the same right to marry as heterosexuals, Before Obergfell, heterosexuals had the right to marry the person they wanted to spend the rest of their life with, pursuant to their unalienable rights that the government cannot abolish. Homosexuals were being denied that same fundamental right.

Hence Obergfell.

No. I say that because they ARE seeking special rights. I don't care about what the courts say. The courst said that black people were property to be disposed of at the will of its owner. Why would I care about what the courts say. Common sense tell us that all men and women can be married. This isn't like after the Civil War when blacks could not get married. That was discrimination.

Dear ding
It was discrimination when whites and blacks could not marry each other.
But they could both marry (as men and women pairs) as long as they weren't black/white mixed race.

The problem here is gender orientation is
NOT THE SAME AS RACE

No one has ever changed race, back and forth, by coming out,
or by healing and then changing, as with orientation and gender identity.

Physical gender is determined by genetics like race.
Now if you go into "spiritual identity" beyond what is physical,
that is FAITH BASED unlike race that is genetic.

Again I compare this with
* defining life legally as being recognized by BIRTH
vs.
* recognizing life spiritually and consciousness/will/identity
at conception or some other FAITH based point

For legal reasons, we draw the line at BIRTH.
And with Gender, states like Texas recognize BIRTH gender as the LEGAL definition.

If people want it changed to something else,
then if that criteria is FAITH BASED
then the govt cannot dictate that for the people.
The people must consent to any FAITH based policy.
If people contest a FAITH based bias, then the state
should remove that, to be consistent.

Same with BELIEFS if someone is homosexual as
an IDENTITY or if homosexuality is only a choice of BEHAVIOR.

Since this is FAITH BASED, again
govt cannot decide such a policy for people
or it is ESTABLISHING A BELIEF.

That is not the authority of govt to do so.

Skylar has argued that the whole system and
history of the country is a battle of political beliefs
and fighting to establish one or another by majority rule.

I am saying if people CONSENTED to that, such
as when people USED to consent to marriage laws being man/woman only,
then it is accepted UP TO THAT POINT

But when people clearly establish they do NOT agree
then it is NOT constitutional to bypass and ignore the beliefs
being violated and make laws anyway.

Thus it was NOT fully constitutional for
* gay marriage bans to be passed by majority rule where
half the population of states were objecting by their beliefs
* right to marriage or endorsing same sex marriage
through states where half the population objects by their beliefs

Marriage policies involve beliefs.
Trying to take shortcuts and force a policy by majority rule is stll not going to be accepted because of
clashing beliefs.

The root issues still need to be addressed, before policies can be established that will stand as truly representing the public. There are no shortcuts. The laws will need to be reworked until all parties feel equaly represented in public policy without discrimination.

Emily, the 14th Amendment was written because blacks could not marry period. A black man could not marry a black woman. Did you know that?

 

[emilynghiem]

I think you all need to face the reality that people who prefer to have sex with the same gender are seeking special rights.

Dear ding
It's a matter of the shoe being on the other foot.

1. When Prolife believe SO MUCH that it is just universal TRUTH, a GIVEN, that life beings at conception, they don't consider that a belief but a RIGHT for that soul to be born and not a choice of the mother to abort or not.
which is to them murder and not a choice. Not a belief but a natural right.

But when it comes to the right to marriage as a belief, that is just the truth, and it takes the court to establish it as law. Not because it is a belief, but because the views against it are beliefs and this is the truth.

2. When Christians argue for the right to express their beliefs as prayer or reference to God and Jesus, or Christmas etc. this is argued as needing to be REMOVED from public policy and institutions. Individual students may pray, but whole classes cannot be led in prayer.

Christians do not get special rights just because of believing in group prayer joined in Christ. That is the practice, but it is not allowed.

But when it comes to LGBT beliefs, then it's the other way around.

Suddenly this needs to be tolerated.
And anyone who objects and says that they don't believe in that, suddenly that person is labeled and harassed as in the wrong.

But not so for the Atheist who sues to remove references to crosses.

So it's a double standard.

It seems to be happening so the LEFT goes through the same or similar process as what the RIGHT goes through, so they know what it feels like to be on the opposite side of that equation!

If prolife people don't understand prochoice, then the right to health care mandates teach that lesson, what it feels like when someone ELSE mandates THEIR beliefs through govt and tramples your free choice with penalties if you don't comply.

And if LGBT people don't get how Christians can hold their beliefs as TRUTH and not see them as BELIEFS that are a CHOICE, suddenly the tables are turned. And now the LGBT are pushing their beliefs as if these are the TRUTH and everyone should accept it or be WRONG, and this is like when Christians push their beliefs through govt thinking they are true and anyone who negates those beliefs are WRONG.

They are playing the opposite roles to learn a lesson.

How long will it take to recognize the experience is MUTUAL. Both sides are learning what the other side feels like when put in that position. So whichever group you were criticizing before, now you get to know that experience and what that side was thinking.

 

[emilynghiem]

Not true at all. The right to marry is a right largely due to the rights of life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness. Those are not rights exclusive for the religious. All people, religious or not, are free to enjoy those rights. More to the point, marriage is a right enjoyed by millions of people who are not religious. Their right to marriage is no less secure than those who are religious.

But they have the same right to marry. What they are seeking are special rights.

You say that as though Obergfell never happened. That aside, they did not have the same right to marry as heterosexuals, Before Obergfell, heterosexuals had the right to marry the person they wanted to spend the rest of their life with, pursuant to their unalienable rights that the government cannot abolish. Homosexuals were being denied that same fundamental right.

Hence Obergfell.

No. I say that because they ARE seeking special rights. I don't care about what the courts say. The courst said that black people were property to be disposed of at the will of its owner. Why would I care about what the courts say. Common sense tell us that all men and women can be married. This isn't like after the Civil War when blacks could not get married. That was discrimination.

Dear ding
It was discrimination when whites and blacks could not marry each other.
But they could both marry (as men and women pairs) as long as they weren't black/white mixed race.

The problem here is gender orientation is
NOT THE SAME AS RACE

No one has ever changed race, back and forth, by coming out,
or by healing and then changing, as with orientation and gender identity.

Physical gender is determined by genetics like race.
Now if you go into "spiritual identity" beyond what is physical,
that is FAITH BASED unlike race that is genetic.

Again I compare this with
* defining life legally as being recognized by BIRTH
vs.
* recognizing life spiritually and consciousness/will/identity
at conception or some other FAITH based point

For legal reasons, we draw the line at BIRTH.
And with Gender, states like Texas recognize BIRTH gender as the LEGAL definition.

If people want it changed to something else,
then if that criteria is FAITH BASED
then the govt cannot dictate that for the people.
The people must consent to any FAITH based policy.
If people contest a FAITH based bias, then the state
should remove that, to be consistent.

Same with BELIEFS if someone is homosexual as
an IDENTITY or if homosexuality is only a choice of BEHAVIOR.

Since this is FAITH BASED, again
govt cannot decide such a policy for people
or it is ESTABLISHING A BELIEF.

That is not the authority of govt to do so.

Skylar has argued that the whole system and
history of the country is a battle of political beliefs
and fighting to establish one or another by majority rule.

I am saying if people CONSENTED to that, such
as when people USED to consent to marriage laws being man/woman only,
then it is accepted UP TO THAT POINT

But when people clearly establish they do NOT agree
then it is NOT constitutional to bypass and ignore the beliefs
being violated and make laws anyway.

Thus it was NOT fully constitutional for
* gay marriage bans to be passed by majority rule where
half the population of states were objecting by their beliefs
* right to marriage or endorsing same sex marriage
through states where half the population objects by their beliefs

Marriage policies involve beliefs.
Trying to take shortcuts and force a policy by majority rule is stll not going to be accepted because of
clashing beliefs.

The root issues still need to be addressed, before policies can be established that will stand as truly representing the public. There are no shortcuts. The laws will need to be reworked until all parties feel equaly represented in public policy without discrimination.

Emily, the 14th Amendment was written because blacks could not marry period. A black man could not marry a black woman. Did you know that?

I knew that black people did not own their own bodies but were considered property of their owners.
So whatever laws came from that, I am not surprised. I had not heard specifically of THIS law, but it makes sense in a context where it was even practice to have the stronger males rape the women slaves to breed more slaves. I understand Irish slaves were also raped by black slaves in order for the children to have darker skin which was considered more valuable for identification purposes.

What I was referring to was people who argue against the religious Christian belief against miscenagation or race mixing.

People tend to cite that as a closer example of religious beliefs against same sexes marrying.

But as pointed out before, there are no bans against gay people marrying people of the opposite gender; and it is just as unlawful for heterosexual people to marry people of the same gender. Nobody is allowed to do it.

 

[emilynghiem]

Nope, it's like going through govt to get it established that Muslims have the right to pray to Allah
because otherwise they are persecuted by Christians who only believe in praying to God through Jesus.

You already have the right to pray to whoever you want IN PRIVATE
but it's not the authority of GOVT to recognize if this is to Allah.

The right to prayer and the right to marriage are both under religious freedom.

That's fine if you want to open the door for Christians to claim the right
to prayer as part of govt function also. I'm sure they'd consider a trade off!

Not true at all. The right to marry is a right largely due to the rights of life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness. Those are not rights exclusive for the religious. All people, religious or not, are free to enjoy those rights. More to the point, marriage is a right enjoyed by millions of people who are not religious. Their right to marriage is no less secure than those who are religious.

But they have the same right to marry. What they are seeking are special rights.

You say that as though Obergfell never happened. That aside, they did not have the same right to marry as heterosexuals, Before Obergfell, heterosexuals had the right to marry the person they wanted to spend the rest of their life with, pursuant to their unalienable rights that the government cannot abolish. Homosexuals were being denied that same fundamental right.

Hence Obergfell.

No. I say that because they ARE seeking special rights. I don't care about what the courts say. The courst said that black people were property to be disposed of at the will of its owner. Why would I care about what the courts say. Common sense tell us that all men and women can be married. This isn't like after the Civil War when blacks could not get married. That was discrimination.

Again, this is nonsense – no one is seeking ‘special rights’; indeed, there is no such thing as ‘special rights.’

For example, if a state were to pass a law prohibiting Asian-Americans from marrying, the same Constitutional principle would apply, and such a measure would be just as much a violation of the 14th Amendment as seeking to deny gay Americans access to marriage law.

The states cannot disadvantage a given class of persons for no other reason than who they are – to do so would violate the same Equal Protection and Due Process rights afforded to every citizen, regardless who they are, Asian-American or gay American.

Dear C_Clayton_Jones

The difference is
Asian Americans already recognize they are protected under RACE

but people who believe in gay or transgender orientation and expression don't recognize this is equally protected under CREED or BELIEF as a PRACTICE or spiritual identity that is FAITH based.

That's FINE if you want to teach people to recognize LGBT orientation as an identity.

But the same way Christians want to teach people GOD is real or JESUS is real, that has to be by FREE CHOICE. These are both SPIRITUAL issues of BELIEF.

You are supporting establishing a faith based belief similar to believing in Christianity as a WAY OF LIFE that needs to be Respected and Protected and is NOT a choice of belief.

Sorry but the fact people don't agree and don't BELIEVE the same proves it is a BELIEF.

If it were PROVEABLE like how race and gender determined by birth can be proven not to be the person's choice, that's one thing.

But this is NOT Proven but remains FAITH BASED.

And there are as many who have seen proof and believe that orientation can change and is a choice of behavior.

That is a belief too!

So both sides beliefs deserve EQUAL protection from imposition BY THE OTHER.

The problem with you is you don't believe in treating both beliefs equally as belonging to people to choose and being outside govt.

You only believe in defending one side, just like Christians who only rally for freedom of religions for Christians but not Muslims or Atheists.

Religious applies to all.

So again the fairest way I see to address this is to treat it as belief or creed, so that all beliefs on all sides are equally protected and none are penalized for not agreeing with others.

C_Clayton_Jones
maybe I would believe you if you supported giving the same protections
to Christians who want to practice group and intercessory prayer in
public schools and other institutions.

They also believe it is part of their identity and expression,
and that barring them from this on grounds it is a private belief
is a form of censorship and judging Christians and rejecting them.

So sure, if you would agree to open the door for Christian expression
and identity NOT to be discriminated against, harassed, EXCLUDED
from public institutions etc. I might believe you.

I just ask that we be fair.

If we bar Christians from "imposing" their expressions of belief on
others who don't share those beliefs or even oppose them,
and we don't consider that intolerant but just policy
to separate private personal beliefs from public policy,
then the LGBT beliefs values and expressions/identity/standards
should be treated the same way.

Otherwise it is discrimination by CREED.
to push one through govt and PENALIZE and harass
anyone who disagrees,
but when Christians push their beliefs and expressions through govt
they claim are part of their spiritual identity and truth
people who disagree are supported legally on Constitutional grounds.

Can you explain how that is considered fair treatment
to advocate one while penalizing and excluding the other.

Expecting Christians to keep their identity and expression/beliefs
to themselves in private
but when it comes to LGBT beliefs then people are insulted
harassed and namecalled if they ask to keep those beliefs in private
and out of public policy.

Why the double standard.
isn't that causing the appearance of special rights?