Gay marriage is not a constitutional right

[Faun]

That's still not this thread's topic.

It's directly related. This ignorant pissing match between homophobes and gay rights advocates is an argument that doesn't need to happen because the problem is created by government in the first place. It's similar to the campaign to add gay to the protected classes list. It's a problem that should exist because protected classes themselves are a violation of equal protection.

It's not the topic of this thread. If that's what you want to talk about, why don't you start a thread on that topic?

Its totally on topic. You have interest in root causes?

No one is arguing here if the government should be in the business of regulating marriage.

Stop diverting.

I'm not diverting. I'm talking about the root cause of your little squabble.

No, you're not. You're trying to argue that the government shouldn't be in the business of marriage.

That is not the thread topic. Your argument is that gays and straights should be treated the same in that no one should get benefits.

That's not the topic of this thread.

 

[dblack]

It's directly related. This ignorant pissing match between homophobes and gay rights advocates is an argument that doesn't need to happen because the problem is created by government in the first place. It's similar to the campaign to add gay to the protected classes list. It's a problem that should exist because protected classes themselves are a violation of equal protection.

It's not the topic of this thread. If that's what you want to talk about, why don't you start a thread on that topic?

Its totally on topic. You have interest in root causes?

No one is arguing here if the government should be in the business of regulating marriage.

Stop diverting.

I'm not diverting. I'm talking about the root cause of your little squabble.

No, you're not. You're trying to argue that the government shouldn't be in the business of marriage.

That is not the thread topic. Your argument is that gays and straights should be treated the same in that no one should get benefits.

That's not the topic of this thread.

Yeah. Topic policeman, got it.

The issue I'm raising is directly related. I think it's worth talking about, so I am. If you don't, don't.

 

[Wry Catcher]

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.

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.

Maybe you ought to study some history. I don't mean that as a personal attack at all, the history of bigotry is deeply ingrained in our history, and BTW, Jefferson's words in the second paragraph of the DoI seem essential to this issue:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness"​

That phrase actually relates to Article I, Section 2, clause 5's natural born citizen clause and the Fifth Amendment's life, liberty, and property clause. The Declaration of Independence was written to King George. That phrase regarded equal in the eyes of God and that no man is born a subject of a King, which was a natural born subject, and became a natural born citizen in Article I.

Huh?

The only reference to a natural citizen is in Art. II and is about eligibility to be POTUS;

As for The 5th Amendment:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

There is no mention of a natural person anywhere else in COTUS, and Jefferson wrote the DoI well before the COTUS was even thought of. What source gave you the claim you've made about Natural Born Citizens?

 

[Wry Catcher]

It's directly related. This ignorant pissing match between homophobes and gay rights advocates is an argument that doesn't need to happen because the problem is created by government in the first place. It's similar to the campaign to add gay to the protected classes list. It's a problem that should exist because protected classes themselves are a violation of equal protection.

It's not the topic of this thread. If that's what you want to talk about, why don't you start a thread on that topic?

Its totally on topic. You have interest in root causes?

No one is arguing here if the government should be in the business of regulating marriage.

Stop diverting.

I'm not diverting. I'm talking about the root cause of your little squabble.

No, you're not. You're trying to argue that the government shouldn't be in the business of marriage.

That is not the thread topic. Your argument is that gays and straights should be treated the same in that no one should get benefits.

That's not the topic of this thread.

Marriage is a CONTRACT. If State A recognizes a contract, and state B refuses to honor it, the result will be chaos.

 

[emilynghiem]

Sure there are. That's why gays are fighting for marriage rights.

What they fought for, and won, were equal rights, not special rights.

Dear Faun
1. RE: What are the govt's compelling interest
The argument to remove ALL biases and beliefs in marriage policy from govt, including either pro or anti gay or pro or anti traditional marriage etc.
is to PREVENT discrimination by creed
Both sides argue their version of the marriage laws defends their beliefs;
and both sides argue the other sides version discriminates against their beliefs.

So the solution is to rewrite laws where both sides agree that all beliefs
are accommodated equally and NEITHER side is objecting to bias in belief.
That's the compelling interest
* equal protection of the laws
* equal First Amendment rights neither to establish nor prohibit
the free exercise of beliefs of either side
* no discrimination on the basis of creed

2. equal rights vs special rights
both the laws for traditional marriage
and the laws endorsing same sex marriage
would be establishing "special rights" for pepole of those beliefs.

this violates the beliefs of people
* against excluding same sex if traditional marriage is endorsed
* against including same sex if same sex marriage is endorsed
* against EITHER being endorsed by govt instead of removing marriage
and/or beliefs about it altogether and only having govt recognize civil unions

so if any marriage policy, either pro traditional pro same sex anti same sex etc etc get passed through govt, those people who believe in that are
getting "special rights" to have govt endorse THEIR beliefs
at the expense of people of opposing beliefs

it's not just the LGBT that were pushing for special rights.
But two wrongs don't make it right.
To correct the problem of special rights for traditional marraige
beliefs, it doesn't fix the problem by pushing for special rights for
those who agree that same sex marriage shoudl be endorsed by govt.
That's EQUALLY a belief not all people share.

You are substituting one belief for another and both are violations of
freedom of religion barring govt from establishing or prohibiting either way.

You are like the equivalent of trying to correct
the problem of Christians wanting prayer in public institutions
by instituting Muslim prayer to be included.

Well what about people arguing ALL prayer should be removed
and not have govt endorse ANY or EITHER type of prayer.

Right to prayer is as fundamental a right and freedom
under religious free exercise as is
right to marriage.

Trying to establish marriage through govt
causes just as much complications over beliefs
as trying to establish marriage through govt.

Either agree on a policy or remove it.
Or its just different groups competing for
THEIR beliefs about prayer (or marriage) being endorsed through govt.

Christians don't have to change their beliefs about marriage for govt,
anymore than atheists should have to tolerate prayers in Christ Jesus
as a govt endorsed policy for states to endorse for all people to participate in.

However, maybe Christians would accept such a tradeoff;
if we wrote up and passed a Constitutional Amendment on political beliefs
and allows right to health care equally as right to life,
and right to prayer equally as right to marriage,
maybe both sides would AGREE to include and tolerate the other's beliefs
that are part of their spiritual identity and public expression.

Again the compelling interest is
equal treatment and protection of the laws
without discrimination by creed.

A compelling interest would be when it encroaches on the rights of others. As far as discrimination by creed, that is not the case here since any creed can marry.

Dear Faun
(1) That is like saying that Govt can endorse "right to prayer" because people
"can pray to anyone they want."

That still does not give Govt to endorse ANY faith based practice
which violates Amendment One.

(2) the DISCRIMINATION BY CREED occurs when you compare how
homosexual beliefs expressions and practices are treated
compared with Christian beliefs practices and expressions in public policy:

The examples I gave before
A. when Atheists or religious freedom groups sue to remove Christian references in public schools or property,
instead of arguing as LGBT do to "embrace diversity" and ALLOW diverse expressions of BELIEFS
(as is argued for LGBT beliefs in tolerating public expression of homosexuality and transgender identity)
instead of tolerance and inclusion,
these secular groups SUE for removal on the PRINCIPLE ALONE
because of separating SECULAR GOVT from biased BELIEFS that belong in PRIVATE
(where beliefs they don't share, or may be against in the case of Atheists,
should NOT be "endorsed" or integrated into public institutions)

B. however, when Christians argue similarly against expressions against THEIR beliefs,
ie that gay marriage and expressions of homosexuality as natural and/or
beliefs in transgender identity (all being faith based, whether for or against these things)
then Christians who don't accept homosexuality by force of govt
(unlike Atheists who don't accept Christian beliefs by force of govt)
are met with harassment and claims of discrimination.

They are NOT defended on the same grounds as before of "including and tolerating diversity"
and "respecting different views" as the anti-Christian atheists or secularists are defended
when THEY ask for REMOVAL from public institutions and policies based on PRINCIPLE.

Public policy and perception are being pressured to ACCEPT one side and REJECT the other,
instead of treating beliefs equally.

So this is unequal treatment of beliefs.

And that's where I am saying it is DISCRIMINATION BY CREED.

Laws are not bound by religious tenets. No religion is being discriminated against by Obergfell because no one from any religion is being forced to marry someone of tne same gender.

Dear Faun as discussed with Skylar
the First Amendment does not require anyone to be "forced or coerced"
in order for Govt
neither to ESTABLISH nor PROHIBIT a belief.

Now you and Skylar don't consider right to marriage a belief.
I have pointed out, neither do prolife consider right to life
starting at conception a belief either, but both are faith-based and relative.

If anyone else complains of a faith based bias in the law,
that's enough to ask to remove it. it does NOT have to be "coercing or forcing" anyone
in order to be removed -- like crosses on public property that are sued to
be removed when that isn't forcing someone to believe in it either. It's
still a faith based reference and govt cannot be used to endorse it.
Before when people consented to it, nobody challenged it; but as soon
as people said no we don't agree to "tolerate that expression of faith"
the lawsuits started and these things got removed from public institutions
or property; even changing buildings to private in order to preserve crosses,
which is what we are saying could be done here by changing marriage to private
and only keep civil unions through the state that are secular and devoid of bias.

So to cite cases of discrimination by creed:
I compared to ATHEISTS who remove crosses from public property.
Even the case of a religious freedom organization 'across the county'
suing a school over a teacher's memorial on site that displayed cross
symbols because the students wanted to honor that teacher in her way.

it was NOT COERCING OR FORCING ANYONE.
but these atheists and secular groups WIN CASES
to remove these things ***BASED ON PRINCIPLE ALONE***.
In fact, that was one reason they deliberately pursued this case across the country as to make that point that no imposition was necessary, but just the existence of it the
expression of a faith based belief on property owned by a public institution.

Coercion is NOT REQUIRED.
In cases where people reject Christian expression and beliefs, on principle alone.
Why is coercion required in cases where people reject LGBT expression and beliefs.
Why is that treated different from Christian right to prayer endorsed by govt?

Faun and Skylar if you enforce two different standards,
where Atheists can argue to remove faith based beliefs and biases
they reject "on principle alone" of "separation of church and state"
but different standards apply where your beliefs "have to impose or coerce
someone before they can be removed" then that's
what I mean by DISCRIMINATION BY CREED.

if you embrace diversity by letting Atheists reject Christianity
without harassing them for it or calling them wrong or names,
then why this harassment and namecalling of Christians
who don't believe in homosexuality as natural.

That is a double standard
AND IT IS CAUSING HARM.

You are enabling govt to be used to remove Christian beliefs,
while DEFENDING the equal rights of Atheist to be against those,
but when it comes to Christians "not believing in homosexuality"
they are to be rejected and punished for their beliefs,
harassed and name called and you don't support govt in equally defending them from exclusion by pushing for "inclusion of diversity and equal accommodations"
as you do people who support LGBT beliefs.

So these PEOPLE are treated different by law
BASED ON THE CONTENT OF THEIR BELIEFS
EVEN WHEN THE CHRISTIANS WERE NOT IMPOSING EITHER.

They were just expressing their beliefs, and this was
demanded to be REMOVED from public institutions
because it is faith based on principle.

in that case of the crosses on the teacher's memorial
the group that sued did so on purpose to make the statement
that whether or not they are forced or imposed upon (they don't
even see the memorial because it's across the country)
THEY HAVE THE RIGHT TO SUE ON PRINCIPLE ALONE.

So there's your double standard.
Discrimination by creed.

If you don't see this well neither do Christians
think they are h arming anyone or imposing
when they ask for the right to pray in public!

The right to prayer and right to marriage are fundamental
but that doesn't mean govt needs to endorse either one.

Prayer does not have to impose or coerce anyone
and it's been reduced to "moment of silence" to be secular.

So ppl have the right to reduce marriage to "civil unions" to be secular
and void of faith based beliefs biases or references that others object to.
(otherwise if civil unions "aren't the same and people want marriage"
then "right to prayer" should be allowed in govt and public policy and institutions
instead of reducing this to "moments of silence" to appease objectors.)

The arguments and standards should be enforced the same
for both groups in both cases.

 

[Syriusly]

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.

Just as blacks and whites had exactly the same right. To marry a person of the same race.

Which is why the both Loving and Obergefell overturned unconstitutional state laws.

Dear Syriusly
(A) To marry the person you want to spend the rest of your life with is as personal a choice (and becomes a faith based issue if you believe in same sex partnerships or not),
as the choice to "pray to God or Allah" is a personal spiritual belief or choice.

But that doesn't make it the govt's responsibility to ENDORSE prayer to Allah
IN RESPONSE to this being denied by laws that only recognized prayer to God
or prayer to God through Christ.

Sure, if laws only let govt endorse right to prayers as long as this was to God through Christ only,
as "traditional" prayer, that would be unconstitutional to exclude others to the right to prayer.

But it is NOT the solution to demand that Govt open up "right to prayer" and ENDORSE
prayers to Allah or other types of prayers in order to protect them equally as Christian prayers.

The solution would be to RECOGNIZE that 'right to prayer' like "right to marriage"
is a spiritual and religious practice and is not the govt's place to endorse one belief or another on this practice!.

Everyone does have a right to prayer. No one can be denied their right to prayer- they do not however have the right to impose those prayers on others in a government funded space.

Just everyone does have a right to marriage- but that doesn't mean that such marriages can be imposed upon others, or that they have a right to have marriages performed in a government funded space.

 

[Syriusly]

[
(B) You do know that laws about race and marriage
are not the same as laws about gender or orientation, right?

To you, sure, you may see these as both "classes" to be protected by law.

But that doesn't mean all people BELIEVE as you do about MARRIAGE which is
NOT a 'secular function' for everyone. For some people it has religious or spiritual significance,
and that's why this should not be in govt jurisdiction to DEFINE for people..

Laws preventing couples from marrying whether because of the race of the couple getting married or because of the gender of the couple getting married are the same- they are both unconstitutional.

Of course not all people will believe the same thing- that is a given. But whether people personal religious beliefs say that a black man should not marry a white woman or a man should not marry a man have nothing to do with our secular laws.

Religions of course can impose any restrictions within their faith that they want to.

 

[Syriusly]

[
Is it really the position of Govt to dictate which word people use?

So again with the term MARRIAGE if this connotes religious or spiritual meaning
to some people, then if that word in that context of public law imposes a bias in belief
that conflicts with others, then why not use SECULAR terms such as civil union or domestic partnership.

We have no right to a civil union- we all have a right to a marriage.

If you want to change your state laws so that the term 'marriage' is eliminated, and replaced by the term 'civil union' then that is of course your right to do so. I don't see any pressing need to do so, but I likewise feel no pressing need to oppose such a campaign.

 

[emilynghiem]

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.

Just as blacks and whites had exactly the same right. To marry a person of the same race.

Which is why the both Loving and Obergefell overturned unconstitutional state laws.

Dear Syriusly
(A) To marry the person you want to spend the rest of your life with is as personal a choice (and becomes a faith based issue if you believe in same sex partnerships or not),
as the choice to "pray to God or Allah" is a personal spiritual belief or choice.

But that doesn't make it the govt's responsibility to ENDORSE prayer to Allah
IN RESPONSE to this being denied by laws that only recognized prayer to God
or prayer to God through Christ.

Sure, if laws only let govt endorse right to prayers as long as this was to God through Christ only,
as "traditional" prayer, that would be unconstitutional to exclude others to the right to prayer.

But it is NOT the solution to demand that Govt open up "right to prayer" and ENDORSE
prayers to Allah or other types of prayers in order to protect them equally as Christian prayers.

The solution would be to RECOGNIZE that 'right to prayer' like "right to marriage"
is a spiritual and religious practice and is not the govt's place to endorse one belief or another on this practice!.

Everyone does have a right to prayer. No one can be denied their right to prayer- they do not however have the right to impose those prayers on others in a government funded space.

Just everyone does have a right to marriage- but that doesn't mean that such marriages can be imposed upon others, or that they have a right to have marriages performed in a government funded space.

Now we're getting closer Syriusly THANK YOU.
The argument is that Govt cannot establish a belief period.
And people either BELIEVE in same sex couples getting married,
or they do not.

so no, Govt does NOT have authority to establish beliefs.

And this would be like Govt endorsing that Muslims have
the right to pray to Allah. Equally as Christians have the right
to pray to God through Jesus.

With "marriage" state govts are involved in the issuing of licenses.
So it is part of govt function.

And that's why they are saying it is introducing or establishing
a belief within a govt institution.

Very close, Syriusly.
If this is the closest we can get, I'm not going to complain
but at least be happy for that.

My prolife friends also don't want abortion to be practiced at all.
But if we can even agree to separate funding and policy by party,
I can probably convince them to let that slide instead of trying to ban altogether.

Same with the death penalty
If at most we can separate funding but can't outright ban it because
some people still believe in it and have the right to fund and exercise it,
that may be the best we can do.

I'm okay with that, if other people can handle just
separating the funding and policy by party
so they don't feel forced to endorse it through govt!!!

 

[Syriusly]

Non-married people have the right to get married to the person of their choice. Until Obergfell, that right was denied to non-married gays.

And the reason that "right" is important is because of the legal benefits granted to those who are married.

That is but one of the reasons the courts have recognized as being an important reason. Even without any legal benefits we would still have a legal right to marriage.

Sure, but the legal benes are why it's contentious. Conservative fans of marriage don't want to let gays on their gravy train.

No- frankly the legal benefits are not why its contentious.

Of course they are. The legal benefits are why government regulates marriage in the first place. Otherwise it would be just another contract.

No- frankly its not. Marriage originally was just a matter of confirming legitimacy to heirs.

Government regulates marriages for a multiplicity of reasons- and that includes preventing the abuse of minors, and mentally unfit.

 

[Syriusly]

no special privileges were extended.

Try again... do some reading: http://bfy.tw/8Tbs

You're conflating marriage benefits who can marry. That has nothing to do with this thread.

No I'm not. I'm pointing out that the reason marriage is problematic is that the government grants special privileges to those it allows to marry. The state shouldn't be in the business of rewarding people who get married and it shouldn't be deciding who is allowed to marry.

That is of course an entirely different argument- but if you want to end all legal marriage- it is your right to pursue that pipe dream.

The issue you will face is that most Americans disagree with you.

Duh?

Most Americans want legal marriage.

 

[emilynghiem]

[
(B) You do know that laws about race and marriage
are not the same as laws about gender or orientation, right?

To you, sure, you may see these as both "classes" to be protected by law.

But that doesn't mean all people BELIEVE as you do about MARRIAGE which is
NOT a 'secular function' for everyone. For some people it has religious or spiritual significance,
and that's why this should not be in govt jurisdiction to DEFINE for people..

Laws preventing couples from marrying whether because of the race of the couple getting married or because of the gender of the couple getting married are the same- they are both unconstitutional.

Of course not all people will believe the same thing- that is a given. But whether people personal religious beliefs say that a black man should not marry a white woman or a man should not marry a man have nothing to do with our secular laws.

Religions of course can impose any restrictions within their faith that they want to.

Yes Syriusly and
laws banning certain beliefs on marriage from being practiced equally are
DIFFERENT
from laws establishing beliefs on marriage through govt

Do you agree these are two different things??

A court can strike down slavery as violating rights.
But it takes the legislature to write laws outlawing slavery.

We can decide that drugs should be "decriminalized" and
strike down the criminal statutes that are excessive or biased by beliefs.

And that's not the same as legislation that legalizes it.

We still have to agree how to write that separately,
OR ELSE WE CAN RUN INTO THE SAME PROBLEM AGAIN.

We could replace one bad law with one biased another way
that someone else argues is biased and needs to be revised
or it's unconstitutional.

Just because you strike out a wrong math answer
doesn't mean "anything you replace it with is right."

You can keep offering several wrong answers
and they can all be wrong FOR DIFFERENT REASONS
until you get one that is consistent across the board
solves all the variables in the equations and meets
ALL requirements by ALL conditions of ALL factors.

 

[Syriusly]

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.

Just as blacks and whites had exactly the same right. To marry a person of the same race.

Which is why the both Loving and Obergefell overturned unconstitutional state laws.

Dear Syriusly
(A) To marry the person you want to spend the rest of your life with is as personal a choice (and becomes a faith based issue if you believe in same sex partnerships or not),
as the choice to "pray to God or Allah" is a personal spiritual belief or choice.

But that doesn't make it the govt's responsibility to ENDORSE prayer to Allah
IN RESPONSE to this being denied by laws that only recognized prayer to God
or prayer to God through Christ.

Sure, if laws only let govt endorse right to prayers as long as this was to God through Christ only,
as "traditional" prayer, that would be unconstitutional to exclude others to the right to prayer.

But it is NOT the solution to demand that Govt open up "right to prayer" and ENDORSE
prayers to Allah or other types of prayers in order to protect them equally as Christian prayers.

The solution would be to RECOGNIZE that 'right to prayer' like "right to marriage"
is a spiritual and religious practice and is not the govt's place to endorse one belief or another on this practice!.

Everyone does have a right to prayer. No one can be denied their right to prayer- they do not however have the right to impose those prayers on others in a government funded space.

Just everyone does have a right to marriage- but that doesn't mean that such marriages can be imposed upon others, or that they have a right to have marriages performed in a government funded space.

Now we're getting closer Syriusly THANK YOU.
The argument is that Govt cannot establish a belief period.
And people either BELIEVE in same sex couples getting married,
or they do not.

so no, Govt does NOT have authority to establish beliefs.

And this would be like Govt endorsing that Muslims have
the right to pray to Allah. Equally as Christians have the right
to pray to God through Jesus.

With "marriage" state govts are involved in the issuing of licenses.
So it is part of govt function.

And that's why they are saying it is introducing or establishing
a belief within a govt institution.

Very close, Syriusly.
If this is the closest we can get, I'm not going to complain
but at least be happy for that.

My prolife friends also don't want abortion to be practiced at all.
But if we can even agree to separate funding and policy by party,
I can probably convince them to let that slide instead of trying to ban altogether.

Same with the death penalty
If at most we can separate funding but can't outright ban it because
some people still believe in it and have the right to fund and exercise it,
that may be the best we can do.

I'm okay with that, if other people can handle just
separating the funding and policy by party
so they don't feel forced to endorse it through govt!!!

I really don't know what you mean- leaving out abortion, the death penalty and marriage- what are you suggesting?

 

[emilynghiem]

And the reason that "right" is important is because of the legal benefits granted to those who are married.

That is but one of the reasons the courts have recognized as being an important reason. Even without any legal benefits we would still have a legal right to marriage.

Sure, but the legal benes are why it's contentious. Conservative fans of marriage don't want to let gays on their gravy train.

No- frankly the legal benefits are not why its contentious.

Of course they are. The legal benefits are why government regulates marriage in the first place. Otherwise it would be just another contract.

No- frankly its not. Marriage originally was just a matter of confirming legitimacy to heirs.

Government regulates marriages for a multiplicity of reasons- and that includes preventing the abuse of minors, and mentally unfit.

And people AGREE to those terms and AUTHORIZE govt for the reasons
we agree to.

But if you add conditions, such as the ones you object to that marriage
be only for one man and one woman, and people of a state DON"T agree
to govt regulations on those terms, then that law is biased by beliefs
and people demand to change it.

This is why LGBT argued to change laws because it does not represent their beliefs I don't have to agree with those beliefs to RESPECT when LGBT argue
NO we don't consent and believe in that.

So I'm saying the same for Christians or others even Gay people
who don't believe in pushing gay marriage through the govt.
If they don't believe in that, I don't have to agree with their beliefs
to see this needs to be changed or removed.

Marriage and benefits can still be organized and managed in private.

The Catholic Church organizes its own resources for its members.

The Mormons have their own social security on a temporary 2 year basis.

Anyone can do this, and going through govt is NOT required to set up
benefits, health care, etc just like Prolife Networks do.

If all people will agree to is CIVIL unions through the state
and use THAT to govern regulations on legal competence etc.
that doesn't have to introduce define or decide any terms of
"marriage" attached to the civil union or domestic contract.

The Catholic Church teaches its own rules through its schools.
If we AGREE on rules sure they can stay public through govt.
But where we disagree, those can still be established and followed in private.

 

[emilynghiem]

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

Just as blacks and whites had exactly the same right. To marry a person of the same race.

Which is why the both Loving and Obergefell overturned unconstitutional state laws.

Dear Syriusly
(A) To marry the person you want to spend the rest of your life with is as personal a choice (and becomes a faith based issue if you believe in same sex partnerships or not),
as the choice to "pray to God or Allah" is a personal spiritual belief or choice.

But that doesn't make it the govt's responsibility to ENDORSE prayer to Allah
IN RESPONSE to this being denied by laws that only recognized prayer to God
or prayer to God through Christ.

Sure, if laws only let govt endorse right to prayers as long as this was to God through Christ only,
as "traditional" prayer, that would be unconstitutional to exclude others to the right to prayer.

But it is NOT the solution to demand that Govt open up "right to prayer" and ENDORSE
prayers to Allah or other types of prayers in order to protect them equally as Christian prayers.

The solution would be to RECOGNIZE that 'right to prayer' like "right to marriage"
is a spiritual and religious practice and is not the govt's place to endorse one belief or another on this practice!.

Everyone does have a right to prayer. No one can be denied their right to prayer- they do not however have the right to impose those prayers on others in a government funded space.

Just everyone does have a right to marriage- but that doesn't mean that such marriages can be imposed upon others, or that they have a right to have marriages performed in a government funded space.

Now we're getting closer Syriusly THANK YOU.
The argument is that Govt cannot establish a belief period.
And people either BELIEVE in same sex couples getting married,
or they do not.

so no, Govt does NOT have authority to establish beliefs.

And this would be like Govt endorsing that Muslims have
the right to pray to Allah. Equally as Christians have the right
to pray to God through Jesus.

With "marriage" state govts are involved in the issuing of licenses.
So it is part of govt function.

And that's why they are saying it is introducing or establishing
a belief within a govt institution.

Very close, Syriusly.
If this is the closest we can get, I'm not going to complain
but at least be happy for that.

My prolife friends also don't want abortion to be practiced at all.
But if we can even agree to separate funding and policy by party,
I can probably convince them to let that slide instead of trying to ban altogether.

Same with the death penalty
If at most we can separate funding but can't outright ban it because
some people still believe in it and have the right to fund and exercise it,
that may be the best we can do.

I'm okay with that, if other people can handle just
separating the funding and policy by party
so they don't feel forced to endorse it through govt!!!

I really don't know what you mean- leaving out abortion, the death penalty and marriage- what are you suggesting?

The prolife can argue for a state alternative such as through party
where their taxes and any mandates get paid into a hospital,
collective insurance or health share system, that doesn't have
abortions or recreational drugs etc.

The prochoice can argue for a collective system they pay into
that doesn't have the death penalty or ban drugs or abortion, so all the resources
they save from not paying for failed prisons and waste on bureaucracy fighting over this
can go into health care services they want to make universal and affordable for all.

These can be divided by party since health care
involves private beliefs, about right to health care, right to life.

Where people AGREE govt needs to be involved such as with prisons
or medical regulations, sure, we keep that since nobody is opposed.

But as for funding which programs people don't believe the same on,
this can be separated by tracks
and let taxpayers choose according to their beliefs.

The parties can organize most of the nation to
form collective networks statewide and nationwide,
and decide on their own groups policies and terms.
Those who don't fall under any group can either choose
the public option or choose any of the other options or create their own.

So there is no more fighting, just like Catholics
agreeing to the rules of their own programs they fund
apart from Hindus or Muslims who fund their own networks.

Only if they all agree on what is policy, that can be public;
but where their beliefs disagree, we can all agree that
stays private so everyone funds their own.

The benefits is we all have equal right to fund what they believe
in and not what the other group believes. And everyone can
help each other with mentoring to teach whole groups
how to set up their own systems so they become
independent and exercise equal empowerment, education and authority.
that's where the real power is, when you can set up and
manage your own schools, hospitals and cities yourself.
Train all the parties and groups to do this, and
we won't have such overreliance on govt that
it becomes top heavy with too few people "in charge"
fighting for control of mass resources and demands of everyone else.
That's not balanced or manageable.

We need to set up tracks for training whole communities,
cities and states to manage their own populations resources.
So this requires breaking it down by groups to organize
and I suggest by party since likeminded people are already
choosing to represent and work together as a group,
and won't fight over beliefs they don't all share.

We've already organized by party, why not use that
to set up equal resources training and facilities
for all people to use to access equal services.

 

[Syriusly]

That is but one of the reasons the courts have recognized as being an important reason. Even without any legal benefits we would still have a legal right to marriage.

Sure, but the legal benes are why it's contentious. Conservative fans of marriage don't want to let gays on their gravy train.

No- frankly the legal benefits are not why its contentious.

Of course they are. The legal benefits are why government regulates marriage in the first place. Otherwise it would be just another contract.

No- frankly its not. Marriage originally was just a matter of confirming legitimacy to heirs.

Government regulates marriages for a multiplicity of reasons- and that includes preventing the abuse of minors, and mentally unfit.

And people AGREE to those terms and AUTHORIZE govt for the reasons
we agree to.

But if you add conditions, such as the ones you object to that marriage
be only for one man and one woman, and people of a state DON"T agree
to govt regulations on those terms, then that law is biased by beliefs
and people demand to change it.

This is why LGBT argued to change laws because it does not represent their beliefs I don't have to agree with those beliefs to RESPECT when LGBT argue
NO we don't consent and believe in that.

So I'm saying the same for Christians or others even Gay people
who don't believe in pushing gay marriage through the govt.
If they don't believe in that, I don't have to agree with their beliefs
to see this needs to be changed or removed.

Marriage and benefits can still be organized and managed in private.

The Catholic Church organizes its own resources for its members.

The Mormons have their own social security on a temporary 2 year basis.

Anyone can do this, and going through govt is NOT required to set up
benefits, health care, etc just like Prolife Networks do.

If all people will agree to is CIVIL unions through the state
and use THAT to govern regulations on legal competence etc.
that doesn't have to introduce define or decide any terms of
"marriage" attached to the civil union or domestic contract.

The Catholic Church teaches its own rules through its schools.
If we AGREE on rules sure they can stay public through govt.
But where we disagree, those can still be established and followed in private.

Emily- you tend to use 100 words when 10 words would do. I am trying to parse down to what you are suggesting

Are you suggesting changing the current term we use for marriage from 'marriage' to 'civil unions' but have all of the legal obligations/responsibilities etc remain the same?

Or are you suggesting privatizing all of the legal obligations- for example- Social Security?

 

[emilynghiem]

Try again... do some reading: http://bfy.tw/8Tbs

You're conflating marriage benefits who can marry. That has nothing to do with this thread.

No I'm not. I'm pointing out that the reason marriage is problematic is that the government grants special privileges to those it allows to marry. The state shouldn't be in the business of rewarding people who get married and it shouldn't be deciding who is allowed to marry.

That is of course an entirely different argument- but if you want to end all legal marriage- it is your right to pursue that pipe dream.

The issue you will face is that most Americans disagree with you.

Duh?

Most Americans want legal marriage.

OK so make it fair.
Whatever state you are in,
either make it where all those American citizens get "civil unions" under an agreed policy,
or they all get "marriage" under policies that ALL those citizens
or all Americans believe in as equally representing and not discriminating against them
under public policy, since their beliefs are involved.

That's fair Syriusly
(and if you think this is a pipedream, the motto on the
Supreme Court states "equal justice under law" which
is the motto and goal, even though you can say that's a pipe dream.
but that's our standard as equal protections of the law, another goal
we have yet to achieve)

If their conditions are if you want to include gay marriage
and transgender expression in public institutions
then no more suing harassment or discrimination
against people wanting to express their beliefs
through Christian prayer, preaching proselytizing
teaching and practicing spiritual healing.

All this can be included in govt recognition as a fundamental right.

Whatever terms people agree on in order to
have marriage through govt, those need to be settled!

Because marriage involves people's beliefs
it can't be decided by govt in ways that other people
object to as conflicting or violating their beliefs.

it's not my place to say that a cross "isn't imposing on an Atheist"
if they don't consent, and they say that isn't neutral and
has to be removed, then treat that person equally
as someone saying marriage laws that endorse same sex couples
is not neutral enough and that needs to be removed.

If they agree to civil unions instead, that's one way to resolve it.
Or if they agree for govt to endorse Christian healing prayer
as a protected practice that can't be discriminated against or excluded,
that's another way an AGREED policy might be reached.

But no group can decide for another group what is against their beliefs.
And whether or not it imposes is also not a criteria
because removing references to God or crosses
was not because this was "forcing anyone" into a particular practice.

If people object, that means there is something wrong they
don't consent to which needs to be resolved.

So we keep working till we agree all such conflicts are resolved.
and then yes, states can pass laws on marriage and there
could be a national consensus on these issues.
If people truly agree that the issues were addressed,
it can't be forced by govt because beliefs are inherently involved.

 

[dblack]

Try again... do some reading: http://bfy.tw/8Tbs

You're conflating marriage benefits who can marry. That has nothing to do with this thread.

No I'm not. I'm pointing out that the reason marriage is problematic is that the government grants special privileges to those it allows to marry. The state shouldn't be in the business of rewarding people who get married and it shouldn't be deciding who is allowed to marry.

That is of course an entirely different argument- but if you want to end all legal marriage- it is your right to pursue that pipe dream.

The issue you will face is that most Americans disagree with you.

Duh?

Most Americans want legal marriage.

Yep. Captain Obvious?

 

[Tennyson]

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.

Maybe you ought to study some history. I don't mean that as a personal attack at all, the history of bigotry is deeply ingrained in our history, and BTW, Jefferson's words in the second paragraph of the DoI seem essential to this issue:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness"​

That phrase actually relates to Article I, Section 2, clause 5's natural born citizen clause and the Fifth Amendment's life, liberty, and property clause. The Declaration of Independence was written to King George. That phrase regarded equal in the eyes of God and that no man is born a subject of a King, which was a natural born subject, and became a natural born citizen in Article I.

Huh?

The only reference to a natural citizen is in Art. II and is about eligibility to be POTUS;

As for The 5th Amendment:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

There is no mention of a natural person anywhere else in COTUS, and Jefferson wrote the DoI well before the COTUS was even thought of. What source gave you the claim you've made about Natural Born Citizens?

A natural born citizen is derived from natural law, which is the basis of the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights. Prior to the Declaration of Independence and the Revolutionary War, anyone born was born a natural born subject. After we won the war and created Constitution, then the same natural law in the Declaration of Independence was the basis for natural born citizen.

I was referencing the three basic unalienable rights in the Fifth Amendment: life, liberty, and property, which is based on the same natural rights.

 

[Tennyson]

[
(B) You do know that laws about race and marriage
are not the same as laws about gender or orientation, right?

To you, sure, you may see these as both "classes" to be protected by law.

But that doesn't mean all people BELIEVE as you do about MARRIAGE which is
NOT a 'secular function' for everyone. For some people it has religious or spiritual significance,
and that's why this should not be in govt jurisdiction to DEFINE for people..

Laws preventing couples from marrying whether because of the race of the couple getting married or because of the gender of the couple getting married are the same- they are both unconstitutional.

Of course not all people will believe the same thing- that is a given. But whether people personal religious beliefs say that a black man should not marry a white woman or a man should not marry a man have nothing to do with our secular laws.

Religions of course can impose any restrictions within their faith that they want to.

What is unconstitutional is for any branch of the federal government to involve itself with a state's marriage laws. Other than judicial activism that cannot be supported with a constitutional basis, the concept does not exist.