Gay marriage is not a constitutional right

[Faun]

Dear Boss and Tennyson can I please ask your help to review where I'm getting stuck with Faun.

I'm saying that where marriage involves people's beliefs it should NOT be federal govt that decides laws. At most the States could pass laws. But when I read Faun beliefs even that is not compatible with people who believe the govt should stop at civil unions and not micromanage social benefits based on beliefs about relationships.

what do you think? Are we heading for separate policies and benefits programs dividing tax representation by party? Would that allow people to choose whether to endorse
* gay marriage and benefits or traditional marriage only
* right to health care or free market
* prochoice or prolife beliefs
* gun regulations or gun rights
* life imprisonment or death penalty
* statism vs states rights

Would that solve more problems by allowing choice of partisan platform to pay taxes under. And only keep federal law and taxes for where all parties agree, and delegate the rest proportionally by party per state. So blue states that delegate more to federal can pay and get those benefits. While red states keep more taxes except blue party citizens can still pay taxes through blue programs and micromanage the social programs they choose to relegate collectively on a national level, while allowing red party members to opt out

Would that help where all states can get their representation and not have to have everyone agree to one way or one set of beliefs

pvsi

You're completely off base. Marriage laws are not decided by the federal government. They are decided by the states. In regard to same-sex marriage, the federal government did not write or create any laws. It protected the Constitutional rights of folks who were being denied their right to marry the person of their choice just like heterosexuals were able to do.

 

[Faun]

That entire diatribe is misguided as same-sex marriage laws have nothing to do with religion and everything to do with equal protection under the law. If straight people have the liberty and right to marry the person they love and want to be legally married to, so can gay folks. We don't allow religious beliefs to deny people rights because religious people are offended.

Yes and no Faun
Marriage laws should be passed by states; even after federal courts may strike down bad laws or bans as unconstitutional, it's still up to states to revise their own laws through their legislatures.

As for equal protections, your beliefs are yours to follow.

The problem is that marriage already crosses the line between church and state. So once that is a faith based practice, then either policy, for traditional marriage, for same sex marriage, or both ALL involve beliefs that don't belong to federal government to dictate.

Fed court can strike down laws or bans as unconstitutional, but don't have authority to write laws or create rights.

That's the point people like you don't get.

You are like trying to defend govt replacing Christianity with Universal salvationism that includes more people for equal protection. Sorry but NONE of that belongs in govt unless everyone consents. Replacing it with a different policy doesn't change the fact that marriage already involves beliefs. So will the replacement policy involve beliefs. So that's what is causing the conflict

It's like you're oblivous to what happened regarding Obergfell. Marriage laws are still written by the states. Obergfell did not write laws or create rights. Marriage is the union of two people. The race, creed, gender, or religion of them matters not in the eyes of the law.

Almost Faun You could promote Civil Unions as neutral contracts between people independent of social relationships. But bringing in and using the term Marriage involves Beliefs about Marriage. You might see this as a neutral term. But it's not neutral for people with religious beliefs about Marriage. It's like using the term Shariah to mean secular laws, but this discriminates against people for which Shariah means spiritual duties and practice within their faith -- to them it's not a neutral secular term.

So that's what's going wrong. These laws and rulings aren't staying secular as you intend and interpret. They cross lines into affecting areas of faith.

There's no good [legal] reason to allow anyone, regadless of their race, creed, gender, or religion; to get married but then not call it marriage.

Marriage is "marriage" for everyone, not just for some.

Dear Faun
1. Civil unions can be for everyone and avoid the issue of marriage beliefs not everyone shares. You are free to exercise, teach and practice your beliefs about marriage, but not to impose them through govt on people of other beliefs about marriage.

To be fair to all people of all beliefs, civil unions are universal and secular.

2. If you want to impose further, that is like people who want prayer in schools to include Christian practice of invoking God through everyone joining in Christ Jesus name. I happen to understand GOD represents universal concepts that cover and include all people, but people do not agree on religious terms. It has to remain free choice where beliefs are involved.

Same with beliefs about marriage, not all people agree on religious terms, so out of respect for religious freedom it makes sense to stick with civil unions for the government to recognize as secular contracts and leave beliefs about marriage out of govt.

Again, if you believe otherwise, so do many Christians believe in integrating their beliefs through govt they believe are universal truth as well that includes all people.

3. If you all agree to open the doors of govt to endorse and incorporate all manner of beliefs into laws and public institutions, then that's fair and you are including all people.

But it's discrimination to tell Christians that references to Crosses, prayers to God through Christ, and teaching creation through God all have to be Removed from public institutions while insisting that beliefs about gay marriage and homosexuality as natural must be included for tolerance even when it violates beliefs of others that these are not natural.

It's discriminating by creed, so it violates other laws.

Faun would you agree to a resolution allowing all Christian beliefs and practices to be endorsed and implemented in public policies and institutions, including Christian healing prayer and right to life for unborn and teaching creation in schools, in exchange for allowing beliefs in gate marriage?

I'm sure an agreement can be worked out if all beliefs are included equally as you are asking.

Are you willing to incorporate and include all beliefs equally as yours? Are only the beliefs you happen to agree with? Thanks Faun

Even if we cannot agree how to accommodate all beliefs equally, at least we tried.

Wrong again, Emily. No one is imposing same-sex marriage upon anyone. Everyone is free to marry the person of their choice within legal restrictions, such as age restrictions and consent. No Christian who is opposed to same-sex marriage is forced to marry someone of the same sex.

Regarding the remainder of your post about prayer ... Again, that's a different issue and has nothing to do with same-sex marriage.

 

[Faun]

Ps Faun the compelling interest is upholding laws consistently.

Civil unions for everyone would keep beliefs about marriage out of government and protect religious freedom of people on both sides equally.

Otherwise if one side pushes traditional marriage only or the other side imposes beliefs about marriage for everyone this violates
* beliefs of people of the other group
* beliefs of people who believe in states rights to decide either way
*beliefs of Constitutionalists like me who believe both sides should get their way without imposing on the other
*beliefs of people who believe the state should just recognize civil unions

So pushing gay marriages through govt violates beliefs of all these other people.

While sticking to just civil unions includes all of them and doesn't exclude one more than the other.
Everyone can follow their own beliefs about marriage by recognizing civil unions, so that covers all beliefs equally while yours does not.

States are already free to abandon civil marriages for all within their respective borders. If states want to offer only civil unions for everyone, there would be no legal issue with that. But that was not the case prior to Obergefell. At that time, states decided marriage would be available; but some states decided only certain people would have the right to marry the person of their choice.

 

[Faun]

It's like you're oblivous to what happened regarding Obergfell. Marriage laws are still written by the states. Obergfell did not write laws or create rights. Marriage is the union of two people. The race, creed, gender, or religion of them matters not in the eyes of the law.

Almost Faun You could promote Civil Unions as neutral contracts between people independent of social relationships. But bringing in and using the term Marriage involves Beliefs about Marriage. You might see this as a neutral term. But it's not neutral for people with religious beliefs about Marriage. It's like using the term Shariah to mean secular laws, but this discriminates against people for which Shariah means spiritual duties and practice within their faith -- to them it's not a neutral secular term.

So that's what's going wrong. These laws and rulings aren't staying secular as you intend and interpret. They cross lines into affecting areas of faith.

There's no good [legal] reason to allow anyone, regadless of their race, creed, gender, or religion; to get married but then not call it marriage.

Marriage is "marriage" for everyone, not just for some.

Dear Faun
1. Civil unions can be for everyone and avoid the issue of marriage beliefs not everyone shares. You are free to exercise, teach and practice your beliefs about marriage, but not to impose them through govt on people of other beliefs about marriage.

To be fair to all people of all beliefs, civil unions are universal and secular.

2. If you want to impose further, that is like people who want prayer in schools to include Christian practice of invoking God through everyone joining in Christ Jesus name. I happen to understand GOD represents universal concepts that cover and include all people, but people do not agree on religious terms. It has to remain free choice where beliefs are involved.

Same with beliefs about marriage, not all people agree on religious terms, so out of respect for religious freedom it makes sense to stick with civil unions for the government to recognize as secular contracts and leave beliefs about marriage out of govt.

Again, if you believe otherwise, so do many Christians believe in integrating their beliefs through govt they believe are universal truth as well that includes all people.

3. If you all agree to open the doors of govt to endorse and incorporate all manner of beliefs into laws and public institutions, then that's fair and you are including all people.

But it's discrimination to tell Christians that references to Crosses, prayers to God through Christ, and teaching creation through God all have to be Removed from public institutions while insisting that beliefs about gay marriage and homosexuality as natural must be included for tolerance even when it violates beliefs of others that these are not natural.

It's discriminating by creed, so it violates other laws.

Faun would you agree to a resolution allowing all Christian beliefs and practices to be endorsed and implemented in public policies and institutions, including Christian healing prayer and right to life for unborn and teaching creation in schools, in exchange for allowing beliefs in gate marriage?

I'm sure an agreement can be worked out if all beliefs are included equally as you are asking.

Are you willing to incorporate and include all beliefs equally as yours? Are only the beliefs you happen to agree with? Thanks Faun

Even if we cannot agree how to accommodate all beliefs equally, at least we tried.

The courts already ruled on civil unions versus marriage. Marriage is a civil contract between 2 persons. civil unions are being eliminated in some states already. You are using the concept of separate but equal, which, in and of itself is also grossly illegal. Do you also agree we need different doors, restaurants, drinking fountains for minorities? Because that's what you say when you demand SSM must be called civil unions. That's separate but equal, illegal, and already ruled upon by the SCOTUS YEARS AGO, Emily!

Dear Sneekin
If you say marriage is different from prayer, how can you say it is like public accommodations?

And orientation is not like race and racial segregation.

1. Race is determined even before birth by the genetics of the two parents even before conception because their DNA is set. Orientation is spiritual either from birth by conditions in the womb, or environment such as homosexuality resulting from sexual or other abuse, or spiritual karma. Peope have changed their orientation similar to changing ones identity of faith, which can't be said of race which is fixed genetically.

2. Why are you taking it as insulting to treat LGBT beliefs as other beliefs or creeds that are someone s free choice and right to exercise freely without discrimination?

What is wrong with separate but equal political parties or religions?
Is it offensive to have Catholics practice closed communion and eucharist while Lutherans have open ones anyone can participate in?

Orientation is irrelevant. Marriage is a fundamental right where people have the right to marry the person of their choice within certain legal restrictions which are uniformly imposed on everyone equally.

 

[Sneekin]

Ps Faun the compelling interest is upholding laws consistently.

Civil unions for everyone would keep beliefs about marriage out of government and protect religious freedom of people on both sides equally.

Otherwise if one side pushes traditional marriage only or the other side imposes beliefs about marriage for everyone this violates
* beliefs of people of the other group
* beliefs of people who believe in states rights to decide either way
*beliefs of Constitutionalists like me who believe both sides should get their way without imposing on the other
*beliefs of people who believe the state should just recognize civil unions

So pushing gay marriages through govt violates beliefs of all these other people.

While sticking to just civil unions includes all of them and doesn't exclude one more than the other.
Everyone can follow their own beliefs about marriage by recognizing civil unions, so that covers all beliefs equally while yours does not.

States are already free to abandon civil marriages for all within their respective borders. If states want to offer only civil unions for everyone, there would be no legal issue with that. But that was not the case prior to Obergefell. At that time, states decided marriage would be available; but some states decided only certain people would have the right to marry the person of their choice.

Emily / Faun, let me raise the following problems/points/issues, Emily, you are hard pressed to be able to answer this one, as marriage is currently at the state level, recognized interstate, and civil unions are not.....

Again, since civil unions are being proposed / if included for only gays or those married outside of church, then that would be separate but equal, which in and of itself is patently illegal. If just dropping marriage, then there is a huge cost involved, as any state that would have civil unions already on the books would literally have to rewrite each and every law, to mirror the existing marriage laws. This would then have to be voted on, at great cost. One would also have to check the legality of it, as there are numerous laws at the federal level that hinge on marriage, and not civil unions. Does that mean if your state is the only state wishing to eliminate marriage and replace it, your state would fit the bill? Your state would still have to deal with marriage in two aspects anyway - each state recognizes the other 49 states in regards to marriage. If I am married in State A, and your State B has only civil unions, you still have to have in full force and effect, laws in place to recognize my incoming marriage. If you have just a civil union in your state B, somehow it would have to magically convert to a marriage in my state if you move here - which doesn't address the fact that I may still have my civil union laws on the books - in which case, there is a whole other can of worms opened. In fact, your "marriage by another name" may be completely invalidated in another state - which currently cannot happen. Marriage laws interstate allow me to have marriage age at 14 in my state, 18 in your state, 21 in yet another, but the 14 year old who is married would have a valid marriage in all states. Simply not true in the case of civil unions. Who would pay?

 

[The Great Goose]

Gay marriage sux.

 

[emilynghiem]

Ps Faun the compelling interest is upholding laws consistently.

Civil unions for everyone would keep beliefs about marriage out of government and protect religious freedom of people on both sides equally.

Otherwise if one side pushes traditional marriage only or the other side imposes beliefs about marriage for everyone this violates
* beliefs of people of the other group
* beliefs of people who believe in states rights to decide either way
*beliefs of Constitutionalists like me who believe both sides should get their way without imposing on the other
*beliefs of people who believe the state should just recognize civil unions

So pushing gay marriages through govt violates beliefs of all these other people.

While sticking to just civil unions includes all of them and doesn't exclude one more than the other.
Everyone can follow their own beliefs about marriage by recognizing civil unions, so that covers all beliefs equally while yours does not.

States are already free to abandon civil marriages for all within their respective borders. If states want to offer only civil unions for everyone, there would be no legal issue with that. But that was not the case prior to Obergefell. At that time, states decided marriage would be available; but some states decided only certain people would have the right to marry the person of their choice.

Emily / Faun, let me raise the following problems/points/issues, Emily, you are hard pressed to be able to answer this one, as marriage is currently at the state level, recognized interstate, and civil unions are not.....

Again, since civil unions are being proposed / if included for only gays or those married outside of church, then that would be separate but equal, which in and of itself is patently illegal. If just dropping marriage, then there is a huge cost involved, as any state that would have civil unions already on the books would literally have to rewrite each and every law, to mirror the existing marriage laws. This would then have to be voted on, at great cost. One would also have to check the legality of it, as there are numerous laws at the federal level that hinge on marriage, and not civil unions. Does that mean if your state is the only state wishing to eliminate marriage and replace it, your state would fit the bill? Your state would still have to deal with marriage in two aspects anyway - each state recognizes the other 49 states in regards to marriage. If I am married in State A, and your State B has only civil unions, you still have to have in full force and effect, laws in place to recognize my incoming marriage. If you have just a civil union in your state B, somehow it would have to magically convert to a marriage in my state if you move here - which doesn't address the fact that I may still have my civil union laws on the books - in which case, there is a whole other can of worms opened. In fact, your "marriage by another name" may be completely invalidated in another state - which currently cannot happen. Marriage laws interstate allow me to have marriage age at 14 in my state, 18 in your state, 21 in yet another, but the 14 year old who is married would have a valid marriage in all states. Simply not true in the case of civil unions. Who would pay?

Dear Sneekin I see where you misunderstand me.

I'm saying ALL civil unions be treated the same for both traditional marriage and gay marriage, not for gay couples only. Since of course that isn't fair, then just recognize civil unions for ALL.

Who would pay: both marriage proponents who want to keep either gay marriage or traditional marriage and benefits on either a state or federal level. All people who want a solution and inclusion would figure out the best way to separate this and then deal with the costs.

I suggest keeping civil unions or domestic partnerships as the neutral contract on the secular got level. And if people can't agree on marriage or social benefits then separate that by state or by party which can still go national and not affect the other systems by state or by other parties that can still go national with separate terms

The cost effectiveness of separation comes in separating ALL other areas of incompatible political beliefs so we solve several issues with one solution. And where it costs too much to separate, parties could make deals such as accepting marriage in govt if prayers and creation can be in schools and textbooks. Or agreeing on solutions to faith based beliefs in LGBT, global warming, or spiritual healing that can be proven by science.

Separate prolife taxpayers from prochoice where one pays for planned parenthood and the other pays for the nurturing network.
Separate funding for death penalty or alternative life imprisonment and rehab.
Separate funding for health care through federal mandates or free market.

Add to that credits to taxpayers for restitution from unauthorized abuses and expenditures of public dollars, such as assessing the cost of ACA handouts and unconstitutional mandates and refunding those as credits back to taxpayers to invest in the cost of reforming govt.

That's what I suggest. Have party reps , especially libertarians and vet party and Constitutionalists who believe in separating social programs from federal govt, research the least intrusive way of streamlining separating and reforming this so it meets Constitutional standards and incurs the least cost. If it really is the best solution, and a!reset everyone's concerns for equal representation of interests, the majority across different parties would sign on.

That's why I would include paying reimbursement to taxpayers for trillions in bad govt misspending as part of the plan. Each party has its laundry list of who owes what to taxpayers. Those credits can be assessed and applied toward creating jobs in reform to correct the root problems and stop the waste.

 

[emilynghiem]

Yes and no Faun
Marriage laws should be passed by states; even after federal courts may strike down bad laws or bans as unconstitutional, it's still up to states to revise their own laws through their legislatures.

As for equal protections, your beliefs are yours to follow.

The problem is that marriage already crosses the line between church and state. So once that is a faith based practice, then either policy, for traditional marriage, for same sex marriage, or both ALL involve beliefs that don't belong to federal government to dictate.

Fed court can strike down laws or bans as unconstitutional, but don't have authority to write laws or create rights.

That's the point people like you don't get.

You are like trying to defend govt replacing Christianity with Universal salvationism that includes more people for equal protection. Sorry but NONE of that belongs in govt unless everyone consents. Replacing it with a different policy doesn't change the fact that marriage already involves beliefs. So will the replacement policy involve beliefs. So that's what is causing the conflict

It's like you're oblivous to what happened regarding Obergfell. Marriage laws are still written by the states. Obergfell did not write laws or create rights. Marriage is the union of two people. The race, creed, gender, or religion of them matters not in the eyes of the law.

Almost Faun You could promote Civil Unions as neutral contracts between people independent of social relationships. But bringing in and using the term Marriage involves Beliefs about Marriage. You might see this as a neutral term. But it's not neutral for people with religious beliefs about Marriage. It's like using the term Shariah to mean secular laws, but this discriminates against people for which Shariah means spiritual duties and practice within their faith -- to them it's not a neutral secular term.

So that's what's going wrong. These laws and rulings aren't staying secular as you intend and interpret. They cross lines into affecting areas of faith.

There's no good [legal] reason to allow anyone, regadless of their race, creed, gender, or religion; to get married but then not call it marriage.

Marriage is "marriage" for everyone, not just for some.

Dear Faun
1. Civil unions can be for everyone and avoid the issue of marriage beliefs not everyone shares. You are free to exercise, teach and practice your beliefs about marriage, but not to impose them through govt on people of other beliefs about marriage.

To be fair to all people of all beliefs, civil unions are universal and secular.

2. If you want to impose further, that is like people who want prayer in schools to include Christian practice of invoking God through everyone joining in Christ Jesus name. I happen to understand GOD represents universal concepts that cover and include all people, but people do not agree on religious terms. It has to remain free choice where beliefs are involved.

Same with beliefs about marriage, not all people agree on religious terms, so out of respect for religious freedom it makes sense to stick with civil unions for the government to recognize as secular contracts and leave beliefs about marriage out of govt.

Again, if you believe otherwise, so do many Christians believe in integrating their beliefs through govt they believe are universal truth as well that includes all people.

3. If you all agree to open the doors of govt to endorse and incorporate all manner of beliefs into laws and public institutions, then that's fair and you are including all people.

But it's discrimination to tell Christians that references to Crosses, prayers to God through Christ, and teaching creation through God all have to be Removed from public institutions while insisting that beliefs about gay marriage and homosexuality as natural must be included for tolerance even when it violates beliefs of others that these are not natural.

It's discriminating by creed, so it violates other laws.

Faun would you agree to a resolution allowing all Christian beliefs and practices to be endorsed and implemented in public policies and institutions, including Christian healing prayer and right to life for unborn and teaching creation in schools, in exchange for allowing beliefs in gate marriage?

I'm sure an agreement can be worked out if all beliefs are included equally as you are asking.

Are you willing to incorporate and include all beliefs equally as yours? Are only the beliefs you happen to agree with? Thanks Faun

Even if we cannot agree how to accommodate all beliefs equally, at least we tried.

Wrong again, Emily. No one is imposing same-sex marriage upon anyone. Everyone is free to marry the person of their choice within legal restrictions, such as age restrictions and consent. No Christian who is opposed to same-sex marriage is forced to marry someone of the same sex.

Regarding the remainder of your post about prayer ... Again, that's a different issue and has nothing to do with same-sex marriage.

Dear Faun what's being imposed is the faith based belief that "marriage" should be the same for gay couple as traditional couples. That is still faith based.

When crosses are on public property these are not "forcing" a belief on anyone.

But crosses have been removed on Principle alone.
And in one case, land was transferred to private entity to preserve the cross on a structure as is to resolve the conflict.

So here, marriage can be transfered to private institutions to remove it from govt.

And only keep civil unions for everyone so it's secular neutral and fair.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

You know, this entire discussion would involve far less sophistry if people would merely adopt the position that people should be allowed to do what they want to do when it does not harm others and be prevented from imposing their will when it does.

The devil is in the details, of course, but if people would actually try to construct a world view based upon principles instead of merely deciding what tribe they want to join, then discussions like these could proceed without all the bull shit.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

Gay marriage sux.

as well as nibbles, licks and thrusts if it's being done right.

 

[emilynghiem]

PS thanks Faun for trying to talk through this, reason and understand it. Especially where it doesn't affect you, if it doesn't matter to you if secular laws use the word Marriage to mean secular civil contracts, or states rights vs federal rulings don't affect you and your beliefs. They do affect others whose beliefs are violated.

To me, it's no big deal to use the term Jihadist to mean warmongering terrorists who worship Jihadist as War against the world. But to Muslims this is co-opting their faith and terms for spiritual practice in abusive contradictory ways. So if we write public laws and statements, it is imposing on or establishing adverse beliefs to use language in ways that conflict with people of faith for which these terms mean sacred things.

I don't always get it either, when it seems secular to me too, but out of respect for those who have other beliefs I will try to include them and their limits.

So if my LGBT friends need public endorsement of certain policies to feel equally represented in laws, let's find a way to achieve that in ways that don't overreach, go too far, and end up indirectly unintentionally violating other beliefs and principles.

Similar to gun laws and prolife beliefs. Those laws need to be written and focused correctly where they don't incidentally infringe on other rights .

If you want people to respect your rights, it makes sense to respect other peoples.

If you want them to hear your objections and what you need for representation, then of course, we listen to theirs too.

Like you said, the marriage laws must account for everyone.

So why would you override the objections of others, then argue the laws should reflect everyone???

How can they reflect the public unless we include all people's consent and resolve all issues causing objection!

State sanctioned marriage in the U.S. has always been a civil contract and has always been called "marriage." We don't call marriage something else for certain folks because others find it offensive. Equal protection under the law supersedes Christians' feelings.

Dear Faun I agree with your other post and will reply to focus on that where we agree.

For this, opponents argue similar as you do that LGBT are trying to change the definition of marriage. You insist that it only means the CIVIL marriage. But that's not what that means to other citizens who have equal right to how laws are worded. CIVIL unions and domestic contracts would solve this problem for more people. So I'd leave that to states to work out terms.

If you are going to reform and expand on meanings of terms, let's do the same for the word God instead of cutting that out from public institutions to please the minority.

Let's agree God can mean universal truth wisdom or collective knowledge, laws of nature, Greater Public Good, forces of life etc. Depending on context. Let's agree Jesus means universal justice with mercy or equal justice for all humanity. So we don't have to remove that term or change the wording.

If you are willing to trade out compromises in tolerating different beliefs, maybe those opposing specific marriage beliefs would agree to tolerate those in exchange for tolerating beliefs about creation, etc. In public institutions instead of insisting on removal.

Including beliefs about creation or prayer isn't forcing anyone to change to those, yet these are removed due to faith based beliefs that are relative and free choice.

Well so are beliefs about LGBT, marriage, orientation/identity as natural or unnatural (or both as I believe they're not all unnatural/changeable nor all natural/unchangeable but depend on spiritual conditions the govt can't define for people).

If everyone agrees to equal treatment of beliefs, then we could achieve mutual tolerance on all sides.

It just can't be one sided, Faun, only pushing liberal beliefs calling them secular while rejecting the beliefs of others as religious when both are equally Faith based and remain equal choice until proven by science or accepted by free will not force of govt.

 

[emilynghiem]

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

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

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

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

Uhh, the last I checked, marriage was actually about.......(drum roll).......love.
There are plenty of people who fall in love, want to live with each other and cement their bond with a marriage, yet don't want children and thus use contraception to avoid the pesky business of having to put up with kids in their lives.
As for the Supreme Court's ruling, it was decided on the basis of "equal protection," not, separate but equal.
Gays and lesbians aren't harming you, me, or anyone else. Their getting married does not destroy marriage, as you, me and other heterosexuals are perfectly free to marry women.
All you have to do, is go on about your life and focus on your job, family and next vacation you may be planning on.

Dear LuckyDuck
I'm saying to keep marriage out of government altogether. So nobody has to justify their beliefs or relationships to govt in the first place.

Keep secular contracts that deal with property, guardianship, estate etc under civil laws.

Any social relationships are not supposed to be regulated by govt in the first place, so get those out and we won't have this problem with clashing beliefs

Nobody has to argue why they don't agree or believe in gay marriage.

Muslims don't owe anyone an explanation for refusing pork or Hindus refusing beef.

if people do not believe in marriage to mean civil marriage for gay couples, then simple, just don't impose that through govt.

It is just as wrong to exclude beliefs either for or against gay marriage. No imposition or justification of opposition is required to remove a faith based bias from laws similar to atheists suing to remove a cross or forcing the property to be transferred to private jurisdiction so it can be preserved as is but not on public property.

No explanation is required, just principle alone that not all the public shares the same faith based beliefs so these should be removed so govt is not endorsing a faith based bias.

 

[rightwinger]

PS thanks Faun for trying to talk through this, reason and understand it. Especially where it doesn't affect you, if it doesn't matter to you if secular laws use the word Marriage to mean secular civil contracts, or states rights vs federal rulings don't affect you and your beliefs. They do affect others whose beliefs are violated.

To me, it's no big deal to use the term Jihadist to mean warmongering terrorists who worship Jihadist as War against the world. But to Muslims this is co-opting their faith and terms for spiritual practice in abusive contradictory ways. So if we write public laws and statements, it is imposing on or establishing adverse beliefs to use language in ways that conflict with people of faith for which these terms mean sacred things.

I don't always get it either, when it seems secular to me too, but out of respect for those who have other beliefs I will try to include them and their limits.

So if my LGBT friends need public endorsement of certain policies to feel equally represented in laws, let's find a way to achieve that in ways that don't overreach, go too far, and end up indirectly unintentionally violating other beliefs and principles.

Similar to gun laws and prolife beliefs. Those laws need to be written and focused correctly where they don't incidentally infringe on other rights .

If you want people to respect your rights, it makes sense to respect other peoples.

If you want them to hear your objections and what you need for representation, then of course, we listen to theirs too.

Like you said, the marriage laws must account for everyone.

So why would you override the objections of others, then argue the laws should reflect everyone???

How can they reflect the public unless we include all people's consent and resolve all issues causing objection!

State sanctioned marriage in the U.S. has always been a civil contract and has always been called "marriage." We don't call marriage something else for certain folks because others find it offensive. Equal protection under the law supersedes Christians' feelings.

Dear Faun I agree with your other post and will reply to focus on that where we agree.

For this, opponents argue similar as you do that LGBT are trying to change the definition of marriage. You insist that it only means the CIVIL marriage. But that's not what that means to other citizens who have equal right to how laws are worded. CIVIL unions and domestic contracts would solve this problem for more people. So I'd leave that to states to work out terms.

If you are going to reform and expand on meanings of terms, let's do the same for the word God instead of cutting that out from public institutions to please the minority.

Let's agree God can mean universal truth wisdom or collective knowledge, laws of nature, Greater Public Good, forces of life etc. Depending on context. Let's agree Jesus means universal justice with mercy or equal justice for all humanity. So we don't have to remove that term or change the wording.

If you are willing to trade out compromises in tolerating different beliefs, maybe those opposing specific marriage beliefs would agree to tolerate those in exchange for tolerating beliefs about creation, etc. In public institutions instead of insisting on removal.

Including beliefs about creation or prayer isn't forcing anyone to change to those, yet these are removed due to faith based beliefs that are relative and free choice.

Well so are beliefs about LGBT, marriage, orientation/identity as natural or unnatural (or both as I believe they're not all unnatural/changeable nor all natural/unchangeable but depend on spiritual conditions the govt can't define for people).

If everyone agrees to equal treatment of beliefs, then we could achieve mutual tolerance on all sides.

It just can't be one sided, Faun, only pushing liberal beliefs calling them secular while rejecting the beliefs of others as religious when both are equally Faith based and remain equal choice until proven by science or accepted by free will not force of govt.

Your faith does not have to accept same sex marriage. You just can't force the government to not accept it based solely on your religion

You have to demonstrate a legitimate harm to society in order to get government to forbid it. Same sex marriage opponents have been unable to do that to the satisfaction f the courts.

 

[emilynghiem]

Almost Faun You could promote Civil Unions as neutral contracts between people independent of social relationships. But bringing in and using the term Marriage involves Beliefs about Marriage. You might see this as a neutral term. But it's not neutral for people with religious beliefs about Marriage. It's like using the term Shariah to mean secular laws, but this discriminates against people for which Shariah means spiritual duties and practice within their faith -- to them it's not a neutral secular term.

So that's what's going wrong. These laws and rulings aren't staying secular as you intend and interpret. They cross lines into affecting areas of faith.

There's no good [legal] reason to allow anyone, regadless of their race, creed, gender, or religion; to get married but then not call it marriage.

Marriage is "marriage" for everyone, not just for some.

Dear Faun
Everyone has the right to Prayer
but that doesn't mean that the practice of prayers should be endorsed through govt.

Civil unions can be incorporated and cover all cases. Marriage like prayer can be practiced in private and doesn't need to be connected with govt.

All social benefits can be done through civil unions and contracts and not attempt to define or regulate terms of marriage that remain free to people to choose just like how we pray or meditate.

If we don't agree on terms of social benefits or marriage, that can be done collectively through organizations of free choice, similar to choice of religious programs and practice. It doesn't have to be done through govt which can be reserved to just the secular issues of managing contracts for legal guardianship, custody, Estates etc as civil business contracts independent of beliefs about social relationships between people spiritually which govt should not be abused to regulate or endorse.

This is about marriage, not prayer. One glaring difference, the state sanctions marriage but not prayer. Given the state sanctions marriage, they have to do so equally for all except for in cases where compelling interests prevail, such as certain age restrictions.

That it offends Christians is not a compelling interest. It could be if it forced Christians to marry folks of their same gender, but that is not the case.

So there is no compelling interest in this case to let gays marry the person of their choise, like straight folks can, but then not call it "marriage."

Dear Faun
1. What marriage and prayer have in common is they both fall under religious freedom. Do you not get that?

Not true. Prayer is religious, state sanctioned marriage is not. Folks who desire a religious ceremony are free to do so according to the laws of their faith. There is no religious aspect to the state issuing marriage licenses so it has nothing to do with religious freedoms.

Dear Faun yes the "marriage" becomes biased by faith if you include conditions that gay couples and marriage be recognized the same way which is faith based.

And yes, so is marriage also faith based by interpreting it to mean traditional couples only.

Both are faith based.

Civil unions or domestic partnership 's would be the neutral secular term.

 

[emilynghiem]

PS thanks Faun for trying to talk through this, reason and understand it. Especially where it doesn't affect you, if it doesn't matter to you if secular laws use the word Marriage to mean secular civil contracts, or states rights vs federal rulings don't affect you and your beliefs. They do affect others whose beliefs are violated.

To me, it's no big deal to use the term Jihadist to mean warmongering terrorists who worship Jihadist as War against the world. But to Muslims this is co-opting their faith and terms for spiritual practice in abusive contradictory ways. So if we write public laws and statements, it is imposing on or establishing adverse beliefs to use language in ways that conflict with people of faith for which these terms mean sacred things.

I don't always get it either, when it seems secular to me too, but out of respect for those who have other beliefs I will try to include them and their limits.

So if my LGBT friends need public endorsement of certain policies to feel equally represented in laws, let's find a way to achieve that in ways that don't overreach, go too far, and end up indirectly unintentionally violating other beliefs and principles.

Similar to gun laws and prolife beliefs. Those laws need to be written and focused correctly where they don't incidentally infringe on other rights .

If you want people to respect your rights, it makes sense to respect other peoples.

If you want them to hear your objections and what you need for representation, then of course, we listen to theirs too.

Like you said, the marriage laws must account for everyone.

So why would you override the objections of others, then argue the laws should reflect everyone???

How can they reflect the public unless we include all people's consent and resolve all issues causing objection!

State sanctioned marriage in the U.S. has always been a civil contract and has always been called "marriage." We don't call marriage something else for certain folks because others find it offensive. Equal protection under the law supersedes Christians' feelings.

Dear Faun I agree with your other post and will reply to focus on that where we agree.

For this, opponents argue similar as you do that LGBT are trying to change the definition of marriage. You insist that it only means the CIVIL marriage. But that's not what that means to other citizens who have equal right to how laws are worded. CIVIL unions and domestic contracts would solve this problem for more people. So I'd leave that to states to work out terms.

If you are going to reform and expand on meanings of terms, let's do the same for the word God instead of cutting that out from public institutions to please the minority.

Let's agree God can mean universal truth wisdom or collective knowledge, laws of nature, Greater Public Good, forces of life etc. Depending on context. Let's agree Jesus means universal justice with mercy or equal justice for all humanity. So we don't have to remove that term or change the wording.

If you are willing to trade out compromises in tolerating different beliefs, maybe those opposing specific marriage beliefs would agree to tolerate those in exchange for tolerating beliefs about creation, etc. In public institutions instead of insisting on removal.

Including beliefs about creation or prayer isn't forcing anyone to change to those, yet these are removed due to faith based beliefs that are relative and free choice.

Well so are beliefs about LGBT, marriage, orientation/identity as natural or unnatural (or both as I believe they're not all unnatural/changeable nor all natural/unchangeable but depend on spiritual conditions the govt can't define for people).

If everyone agrees to equal treatment of beliefs, then we could achieve mutual tolerance on all sides.

It just can't be one sided, Faun, only pushing liberal beliefs calling them secular while rejecting the beliefs of others as religious when both are equally Faith based and remain equal choice until proven by science or accepted by free will not force of govt.

Your faith does not have to accept same sex marriage. You just can't force the government to not accept it based solely on your religion

You have to demonstrate a legitimate harm to society in order to get government to forbid it. Same sex marriage opponents have been unable to do that to the satisfaction f the courts.

Nope rightwinger
1. It's not about forbidding or banning it,
But keeping marriage beliefs in private
2. The harm is EITHER sides beliefs being established or endorsed by law against the Other beliefs without free choice and consent
3. The harm is discrimination by creed pitting one set of beliefs against the other instead of keeping both in private

if states agree to include gay marriage as the solution fine, but if enough people in that state do not consent and believe it should be civil unions for everyone and keep marriage private, i would suggest either separating by party or possibly resolving the conflict by agreeing to tolerate God, prayer, creation, spiritual healing prayer, and all other faith based expression in public institutions if LGBT beliefs and creeds are going to be endorsed by government as protected. Then all other creeds should have equal freedom to be exercised instead of removed from public institutions too!

 

[emilynghiem]

Dear Boss and Tennyson can I please ask your help to review where I'm getting stuck with Faun.

I'm saying that where marriage involves people's beliefs it should NOT be federal govt that decides laws. At most the States could pass laws. But when I read Faun beliefs even that is not compatible with people who believe the govt should stop at civil unions and not micromanage social benefits based on beliefs about relationships.

what do you think? Are we heading for separate policies and benefits programs dividing tax representation by party? Would that allow people to choose whether to endorse
* gay marriage and benefits or traditional marriage only
* right to health care or free market
* prochoice or prolife beliefs
* gun regulations or gun rights
* life imprisonment or death penalty
* statism vs states rights

Would that solve more problems by allowing choice of partisan platform to pay taxes under. And only keep federal law and taxes for where all parties agree, and delegate the rest proportionally by party per state. So blue states that delegate more to federal can pay and get those benefits. While red states keep more taxes except blue party citizens can still pay taxes through blue programs and micromanage the social programs they choose to relegate collectively on a national level, while allowing red party members to opt out

Would that help where all states can get their representation and not have to have everyone agree to one way or one set of beliefs

pvsi

You're completely off base. Marriage laws are not decided by the federal government. They are decided by the states. In regard to same-sex marriage, the federal government did not write or create any laws. It protected the Constitutional rights of folks who were being denied their right to marry the person of their choice just like heterosexuals were able to do.

^ Here is your post where we agree Faun ^
yes I agree that although marriage is up to states and people, that federal government is correct in striking down laws or bans against gay marriage as unconstitutional -- but not because they discriminate against marriage as a Constitutional right but *Religious Freedom* as a Constitutional and natural right which includes beliefs on marriage.

Beliefs about marriage and relationships are naturally under free exercise of religion. And violating or regulating free exercise of beliefs violates 14th amendment equal protections to all persons independent of Creed.

Faun by this interpretation of marriage beliefs and rights under First amendment free exercise barring govt from either Establishing or Prohibiting
One belief or another
*Then BOTH sides beliefs are protected equally from each other!*

That interpretation is more universal, covers ALL cases, and includes ALL people regardless of beliefs on marriage and rights.

Now you and traditional interpretations of rulings and precedence keep adding conditions to this such as
* NOT treating religious beliefs and secular political beliefs the same and thus allowing LGBT beliefs to be endorsed by govt while excluding faith based beliefs in prayer or creation
* counting only the civil definition and use of the word marriage instead of seeking neutral terms
* not recognizing right to marriage as a faith based belief but treating it unequally as right to life and other faith based beliefs that other people argue are natural rights not beliefs

So this creates an environment of discrimination.

That's why I believe in recognizing political beliefs equally as faith based as religious beliefs.

I recognize this change requires free choice of people.

But if you and others insist that it requires govt to change it first, that's your belief. I will respect it for you, but for those who believe it should be free choice, I respect that as well.

I don't have money for a lawyer but willing to do a fundraiser to find one and/or call for a Constitutional conference on political beliefs. Recognizing some statists require govt to change laws before they feel they have those rights or choices legally. Recognizing some secularists require proof that is demonstrated or replicated before accepting to change beliefs. And recognizing some people cannot help or change their beliefs and can't be forced to by law.

I'm okay with all that in seeking a consensus on laws touching faith based beliefs, whether religious political or secular, and/or seeking cost effective fair ways to separate policies or funding which includes reimbursement of costs for past abuses of govt paid or credited back to taxpayers to invest in reforms needed to separate or reconcile policies.

Thank you Faun Sneekin etc all
This opens up the whole can of worms,
So let's go fishing for agreed solutions!

 

[Faun]

It's like you're oblivous to what happened regarding Obergfell. Marriage laws are still written by the states. Obergfell did not write laws or create rights. Marriage is the union of two people. The race, creed, gender, or religion of them matters not in the eyes of the law.

Almost Faun You could promote Civil Unions as neutral contracts between people independent of social relationships. But bringing in and using the term Marriage involves Beliefs about Marriage. You might see this as a neutral term. But it's not neutral for people with religious beliefs about Marriage. It's like using the term Shariah to mean secular laws, but this discriminates against people for which Shariah means spiritual duties and practice within their faith -- to them it's not a neutral secular term.

So that's what's going wrong. These laws and rulings aren't staying secular as you intend and interpret. They cross lines into affecting areas of faith.

There's no good [legal] reason to allow anyone, regadless of their race, creed, gender, or religion; to get married but then not call it marriage.

Marriage is "marriage" for everyone, not just for some.

Dear Faun
1. Civil unions can be for everyone and avoid the issue of marriage beliefs not everyone shares. You are free to exercise, teach and practice your beliefs about marriage, but not to impose them through govt on people of other beliefs about marriage.

To be fair to all people of all beliefs, civil unions are universal and secular.

2. If you want to impose further, that is like people who want prayer in schools to include Christian practice of invoking God through everyone joining in Christ Jesus name. I happen to understand GOD represents universal concepts that cover and include all people, but people do not agree on religious terms. It has to remain free choice where beliefs are involved.

Same with beliefs about marriage, not all people agree on religious terms, so out of respect for religious freedom it makes sense to stick with civil unions for the government to recognize as secular contracts and leave beliefs about marriage out of govt.

Again, if you believe otherwise, so do many Christians believe in integrating their beliefs through govt they believe are universal truth as well that includes all people.

3. If you all agree to open the doors of govt to endorse and incorporate all manner of beliefs into laws and public institutions, then that's fair and you are including all people.

But it's discrimination to tell Christians that references to Crosses, prayers to God through Christ, and teaching creation through God all have to be Removed from public institutions while insisting that beliefs about gay marriage and homosexuality as natural must be included for tolerance even when it violates beliefs of others that these are not natural.

It's discriminating by creed, so it violates other laws.

Faun would you agree to a resolution allowing all Christian beliefs and practices to be endorsed and implemented in public policies and institutions, including Christian healing prayer and right to life for unborn and teaching creation in schools, in exchange for allowing beliefs in gate marriage?

I'm sure an agreement can be worked out if all beliefs are included equally as you are asking.

Are you willing to incorporate and include all beliefs equally as yours? Are only the beliefs you happen to agree with? Thanks Faun

Even if we cannot agree how to accommodate all beliefs equally, at least we tried.

Wrong again, Emily. No one is imposing same-sex marriage upon anyone. Everyone is free to marry the person of their choice within legal restrictions, such as age restrictions and consent. No Christian who is opposed to same-sex marriage is forced to marry someone of the same sex.

Regarding the remainder of your post about prayer ... Again, that's a different issue and has nothing to do with same-sex marriage.

Dear Faun what's being imposed is the faith based belief that "marriage" should be the same for gay couple as traditional couples. That is still faith based.

When crosses are on public property these are not "forcing" a belief on anyone.

But crosses have been removed on Principle alone.
And in one case, land was transferred to private entity to preserve the cross on a structure as is to resolve the conflict.

So here, marriage can be transfered to private institutions to remove it from govt.

And only keep civil unions for everyone so it's secular neutral and fair.

You're still off base -- crosses have nothing to do with civil marriages.

You can't seem to defend your position without conflating it with praying, crosses, etc....

 

[Faun]

PS thanks Faun for trying to talk through this, reason and understand it. Especially where it doesn't affect you, if it doesn't matter to you if secular laws use the word Marriage to mean secular civil contracts, or states rights vs federal rulings don't affect you and your beliefs. They do affect others whose beliefs are violated.

To me, it's no big deal to use the term Jihadist to mean warmongering terrorists who worship Jihadist as War against the world. But to Muslims this is co-opting their faith and terms for spiritual practice in abusive contradictory ways. So if we write public laws and statements, it is imposing on or establishing adverse beliefs to use language in ways that conflict with people of faith for which these terms mean sacred things.

I don't always get it either, when it seems secular to me too, but out of respect for those who have other beliefs I will try to include them and their limits.

So if my LGBT friends need public endorsement of certain policies to feel equally represented in laws, let's find a way to achieve that in ways that don't overreach, go too far, and end up indirectly unintentionally violating other beliefs and principles.

Similar to gun laws and prolife beliefs. Those laws need to be written and focused correctly where they don't incidentally infringe on other rights .

If you want people to respect your rights, it makes sense to respect other peoples.

If you want them to hear your objections and what you need for representation, then of course, we listen to theirs too.

Like you said, the marriage laws must account for everyone.

So why would you override the objections of others, then argue the laws should reflect everyone???

How can they reflect the public unless we include all people's consent and resolve all issues causing objection!

State sanctioned marriage in the U.S. has always been a civil contract and has always been called "marriage." We don't call marriage something else for certain folks because others find it offensive. Equal protection under the law supersedes Christians' feelings.

Dear Faun I agree with your other post and will reply to focus on that where we agree.

For this, opponents argue similar as you do that LGBT are trying to change the definition of marriage. You insist that it only means the CIVIL marriage. But that's not what that means to other citizens who have equal right to how laws are worded. CIVIL unions and domestic contracts would solve this problem for more people. So I'd leave that to states to work out terms.

If you are going to reform and expand on meanings of terms, let's do the same for the word God instead of cutting that out from public institutions to please the minority.

Let's agree God can mean universal truth wisdom or collective knowledge, laws of nature, Greater Public Good, forces of life etc. Depending on context. Let's agree Jesus means universal justice with mercy or equal justice for all humanity. So we don't have to remove that term or change the wording.

If you are willing to trade out compromises in tolerating different beliefs, maybe those opposing specific marriage beliefs would agree to tolerate those in exchange for tolerating beliefs about creation, etc. In public institutions instead of insisting on removal.

Including beliefs about creation or prayer isn't forcing anyone to change to those, yet these are removed due to faith based beliefs that are relative and free choice.

Well so are beliefs about LGBT, marriage, orientation/identity as natural or unnatural (or both as I believe they're not all unnatural/changeable nor all natural/unchangeable but depend on spiritual conditions the govt can't define for people).

If everyone agrees to equal treatment of beliefs, then we could achieve mutual tolerance on all sides.

It just can't be one sided, Faun, only pushing liberal beliefs calling them secular while rejecting the beliefs of others as religious when both are equally Faith based and remain equal choice until proven by science or accepted by free will not force of govt.

Gay folks are not going to be denied access to their rights to marry the person of their choice (the same right enjoyed by straight folks) because some religious folks don't like that.

 

[Faun]

There's no good [legal] reason to allow anyone, regadless of their race, creed, gender, or religion; to get married but then not call it marriage.

Marriage is "marriage" for everyone, not just for some.

Dear Faun
Everyone has the right to Prayer
but that doesn't mean that the practice of prayers should be endorsed through govt.

Civil unions can be incorporated and cover all cases. Marriage like prayer can be practiced in private and doesn't need to be connected with govt.

All social benefits can be done through civil unions and contracts and not attempt to define or regulate terms of marriage that remain free to people to choose just like how we pray or meditate.

If we don't agree on terms of social benefits or marriage, that can be done collectively through organizations of free choice, similar to choice of religious programs and practice. It doesn't have to be done through govt which can be reserved to just the secular issues of managing contracts for legal guardianship, custody, Estates etc as civil business contracts independent of beliefs about social relationships between people spiritually which govt should not be abused to regulate or endorse.

This is about marriage, not prayer. One glaring difference, the state sanctions marriage but not prayer. Given the state sanctions marriage, they have to do so equally for all except for in cases where compelling interests prevail, such as certain age restrictions.

That it offends Christians is not a compelling interest. It could be if it forced Christians to marry folks of their same gender, but that is not the case.

So there is no compelling interest in this case to let gays marry the person of their choise, like straight folks can, but then not call it "marriage."

Dear Faun
1. What marriage and prayer have in common is they both fall under religious freedom. Do you not get that?

Not true. Prayer is religious, state sanctioned marriage is not. Folks who desire a religious ceremony are free to do so according to the laws of their faith. There is no religious aspect to the state issuing marriage licenses so it has nothing to do with religious freedoms.

Dear Faun yes the "marriage" becomes biased by faith if you include conditions that gay couples and marriage be recognized the same way which is faith based.

And yes, so is marriage also faith based by interpreting it to mean traditional couples only.

Both are faith based.

Civil unions or domestic partnership 's would be the neutral secular term.

Civil marriage is not faith based. It's a legally binding contract between two individuals. The individuals' race doesn't matter.... their religion (or lack thereof) doesn't matter.... their sexual orientation or lack thereof) doesn't matter.... their creed doesn't matter....

... and now, since Obergefell, their gender doesn't matter.

 

[emilynghiem]

PS thanks Faun for trying to talk through this, reason and understand it. Especially where it doesn't affect you, if it doesn't matter to you if secular laws use the word Marriage to mean secular civil contracts, or states rights vs federal rulings don't affect you and your beliefs. They do affect others whose beliefs are violated.

To me, it's no big deal to use the term Jihadist to mean warmongering terrorists who worship Jihadist as War against the world. But to Muslims this is co-opting their faith and terms for spiritual practice in abusive contradictory ways. So if we write public laws and statements, it is imposing on or establishing adverse beliefs to use language in ways that conflict with people of faith for which these terms mean sacred things.

I don't always get it either, when it seems secular to me too, but out of respect for those who have other beliefs I will try to include them and their limits.

So if my LGBT friends need public endorsement of certain policies to feel equally represented in laws, let's find a way to achieve that in ways that don't overreach, go too far, and end up indirectly unintentionally violating other beliefs and principles.

Similar to gun laws and prolife beliefs. Those laws need to be written and focused correctly where they don't incidentally infringe on other rights .

If you want people to respect your rights, it makes sense to respect other peoples.

If you want them to hear your objections and what you need for representation, then of course, we listen to theirs too.

Like you said, the marriage laws must account for everyone.

So why would you override the objections of others, then argue the laws should reflect everyone???

How can they reflect the public unless we include all people's consent and resolve all issues causing objection!

State sanctioned marriage in the U.S. has always been a civil contract and has always been called "marriage." We don't call marriage something else for certain folks because others find it offensive. Equal protection under the law supersedes Christians' feelings.

Dear Faun I agree with your other post and will reply to focus on that where we agree.

For this, opponents argue similar as you do that LGBT are trying to change the definition of marriage. You insist that it only means the CIVIL marriage. But that's not what that means to other citizens who have equal right to how laws are worded. CIVIL unions and domestic contracts would solve this problem for more people. So I'd leave that to states to work out terms.

If you are going to reform and expand on meanings of terms, let's do the same for the word God instead of cutting that out from public institutions to please the minority.

Let's agree God can mean universal truth wisdom or collective knowledge, laws of nature, Greater Public Good, forces of life etc. Depending on context. Let's agree Jesus means universal justice with mercy or equal justice for all humanity. So we don't have to remove that term or change the wording.

If you are willing to trade out compromises in tolerating different beliefs, maybe those opposing specific marriage beliefs would agree to tolerate those in exchange for tolerating beliefs about creation, etc. In public institutions instead of insisting on removal.

Including beliefs about creation or prayer isn't forcing anyone to change to those, yet these are removed due to faith based beliefs that are relative and free choice.

Well so are beliefs about LGBT, marriage, orientation/identity as natural or unnatural (or both as I believe they're not all unnatural/changeable nor all natural/unchangeable but depend on spiritual conditions the govt can't define for people).

If everyone agrees to equal treatment of beliefs, then we could achieve mutual tolerance on all sides.

It just can't be one sided, Faun, only pushing liberal beliefs calling them secular while rejecting the beliefs of others as religious when both are equally Faith based and remain equal choice until proven by science or accepted by free will not force of govt.

Gay folks are not going to be denied access to their rights to marry the person of their choice (the same right enjoyed by straight folks) because some religious folks don't like that.

Faun I'm not asking for that
I'm basically asking help to sue Democrats to create a separate internal govt to practice those political beliefs without imposing on beliefs of others!

Right to health care, right to marriage, no death penalty, reproductive freedom, all these can be exercised through social programs directed and funded by liberal and Democratic party leaders with the funds already spent on lobbying and campaigns.

I'd further argue that reimbursement already owed to taxpayers for contested war contracts and ACA corporate payouts in the trillions could set up sustainable health care by reforming prisons into medical programs for early diagnosis screening and treatment of both physical and mental illness especially criminal disorders or other dangerous diseases that threaten public health and safety.

If Statists want to impose political beliefs by majority rule, have a separate govt that believes in that.

As for me I believe in consent of the governed, no taxation without representation, due process of laws before depriving people of rights and freedoms, and either consensus or separation on areas involving faith based beliefs to ensure equal protections of the laws without discrimination by creed.

One-sided imposition of left on right or right on left is not equal.

I believe in equal inclusion and representation or else separate taxation by party so each manages their own social agenda for members of like beliefs.

Sure there can still be national govt recognizing rights people believe in. Where the public agrees these can still be through federal govt. Where parties disagree the federal taxes can be divided by party proportionally or allocate to states to work out their state or national agenda without imposing political beliefs on taxpayers who don't consent.