Gay marriage is not a constitutional right

[Faun]

You are close.....

People can CHOOSE to marry a same sex partner or not

you might not like it.....But what business is it of yours?

Dear rightwinger I'm saying to keep it out of govt if you want free choice.
Keep the language secular where everyone agrees to it.

I've found more common agreement to keep Civil Unions in govt
and manage contracts that way and NOT specify any conditions on
the social relationships between the partners who form a legal contract or domestic partnership.

If brother and sister, or two neighbors want to run a household together and share contractual
duties or legal guardianship, that has ZERO to do with if they are having romantic relations
much less if they have to be husband and wife.

And if people don't agree on benefits policies, those are social values also,
that can be separated by party if people cannot agree on state or federal laws for all people in that state or across the nation.

Not to worry rightwinger I already gave up trying to explain it.

I am happy enough to find the other people who get it,
and maybe that's enough to separate our beliefs from govt
and leave everyone else who believe in dominating one political belief "for all people"
every time majority rule decides an election. I don't believe in that,
but if you and others do, I cannot change your minds for you.

All I can do is sue or petition to separate my taxes and my representation
from people like you who believe in violating each other's by majority rule
and claim that gives you license to impose your beliefs, political or otherwise,
onto others who don't agree. and call them delusional, just like people
say that about liberals and try to censor them for it.

I believe this impositional bullying is a DANGER to the very liberal progressive
ideals I believe in regarding free choice, and protecting beliefs and creeds from
discrimination, exclusion, coercion, bullying, imposition, penalty, and deprivation of equal protection rights and liberties.

I understand you and others believe in protecting rights by establishing them through govt,
but I believe this still requires consensus where political beliefs differ.

I don't believe in forcing or imposing them without consent, or it's not
valid authority of law if not all people consent to that policy. I believe
in matters of belief, all objections and conflicts should be resolved to
ensure equal representation and protection of interests, regardless of creed.

But my standards are higher than even very intelligent articulate people like
you and Faun can handle.

so it's not fair to expect you to understand this and change your minds
if you are set on seeing opponents with other beliefs as "delusional."

That's why opponents of liberal beliefs say the same thing, give up
and just resort to voting liberals out of office.

You are danger to your own party principles and you don't even see it.
Where's the inclusion, the free choice.
Both sides have resorted to painting the other as delusional,
and that's where I have to leave you to your own devices if that's the best I can expect from you.

Thanks for your best efforts!

Just know that people say the same thing and think
liberals are "mentally ill" or "deluded" in depending on govt for rights when to them
that is a false and dangerous premise.

Or they want "everyone else" to pay for their programs
so when I advocate to separate tracks so taxpayers have a choice,
they say "liberals will never support that because they want OTHER people
to pay for their programs".

That makes no sense to me. If I and other Democrats believe in sustainable
health care, we should be able to fund it ourselves. And if it's not affordable,
something is wrong with the terms and conditions, and we'd have to change
them such as requiring all people get help for criminal illness abuse or addiction
if that's what driving costs up that could otherwise pay for health care.

I hope it's finally time to separate social programs and funding by party,
Because I'm sick of fighting back and forth when all parties have enough
resources to manage their own policies and not interfere with each other!!!

Government is in the marriage business...

They certify it and make it legal
They provide tax breaks
They provide spousal protections for survivorship and medical care
They supervise the dissolution of marriage

What do you want them to stop doing?

Dear rightwinger
I'm saying if people per state do not agree on terms of marriage,
because of conflicting beliefs, then either revise the laws
such as neutral terms of civil unions if civil marriage isn't neutral enough
and/or even separating terms of benefits by party so people can
choose what they believe in, without imposing on equal choice beliefs and rights of others.

Either agree on a state policy so nobody is arguing about discrimination
or violation of beliefs, ie mediating and resolving all conflicts so laws are neutral,
and/or separate policies for funding and managing benefits if people cannot agree
due to their beliefs.

We don't make laws based on peoples' feelings or religious objections. If we did, capital punishment would be unconstitutional, pork would be banned, cotton/wool blends would be punishable, etc...

Yes Faun I also believe in separating funding for the death penalty
so people can have a free choice but it doesn't impose on other people's choice of funding.

This would take a lot of the "emotional hype" out of election campaigns
if all issues were resolved one by one instead of lumped together,
voting for one party to dominate while the other in the minority risks losing representation.

A lot of fear based bullying going on now would be eliminated
if we based laws on consensus or separation by party so everyone
is equally represented and not forced to fund the beliefs of others.

As for fabric, by the time the Greens Democrats and Social Workers
organize labor pools and worker owned coops and business networks,
maybe we will see more locally grown "hemp" fabric and/or whatever is more sustainable.
maybe we won't rely so much on foreign slave labor for clothing and electronic devices
if we organize labor and factories as campuses providing education, health care and housing
as part of work-study programs to ensure students and workers have protection from abuse,
even if working for barter or credit, or lower training wages in exchange for low cost housing and services.

Religious beliefs and objections are part of how people express consent or dissent.
I believe the right solutions will satisfy people's standards regardless if these are expressed religiously, politically, spiritually or by secular laws, business models, etc.
Faun

That is complete and utter nonsense. We don't have two sets of laws; one for Democrats and one for Republicans. Either laws are Constitutional or they're not. They're not Constitutional for one party but unconstitutional for another.

 

[Faun]

Here Faun
here is a response I posted to someone else
who argued that homosexuality is NOT proven scientifically to be a born innate fixed condition
[and who APPEARS TO CORRELATE homosexuality and transgender identity with "mental health problems"]

====================================
The other author is Dr. Paul McHugh, one of the leading psychiatrists in the world. He was psychiatrist-in-chief at Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore from 1975 to 2001. These scientists reviewed hundreds of peer reviewed studies on sexual orientation and gender identity from the biological, psychological and social sciences. Their conclusions were as follows:.........................

the belief that sexual orientation is an innate, biologically fixed human property – that people are “born that way” – is not supported by scientific evidence.
The belief that gender identity is an innate, fixed human property independent of biological sex – so that a person might be a ‘man trapped in a woman’s body’ or ‘a woman trapped in a man’s body’ – is not supported by scientific evidence........................

Only a minority of children who express gender-atypical thoughts or behaviour will continue to do so into adolescence or adulthood...............

Non-heterosexual and transgender people have higher rates of mental health problems (anxiety, depression, suicide), as well as behavioral and social problems (substance abuse, intimate partner violence), than the general population. Discrimination alone does not account for the entire disparity............................... .............

The second bombshell was exploded by a top researcher for the American Psychological Association (APA), lesbian activist, Dr. Lisa Diamond, co-author-in-chief of ‘the APA Handbook’ of sexuality and psychology and one of the APA’s most respected members. She admitted that sexual orientation was “fluid” and not unchangeable. By doing so, Dr. Diamond confirmed that the myth that “homosexuals can’t change” is now a dead-end theory
===========================================================

Dear sec
Yes and no
1. studies on identical twins do not show correlation in orientation.
some studies were inflated to show higher than 50%, but it's definitely NOT 100% as a genetic cause would show
One source: Homosexuality Can it be Healed by Dr. Francis MacNutt
for interview of Judith MacNutt on 20 cases of homosexual clients healed by spiritual therapy
see: Interview - Francis & Judith MacNutt - Mastering Life

2. homosexual and transgender identity can still be attributed to factors in the WOMB.
studies on brains show a similarity between the brains of females and of gay males.
Even if not genetic, it could be a condition by birth and not someone's choice.

When I look at people who claim to be spiritual soulmates, is that something
either one of them chose? How they were incarnated as black or white, male or female?

3. my argument is to treat LGBT beliefs orientation and gender as SPIRITUALLY determined.
So this covers any and all beliefs equally, and does not discriminate against one or another.
No matter what someone believes, since both sides are faith based and neither proven nor disproven
by science, they remain free choice; and certain govt should never be abused to impose a faith-based bias
or force someone to change their beliefs. These should all be included equally, whether for or against gay marriage
or believing homosexuality is natural or unnatural, a choice of behavior or not, or it can or cannot change.

Some people can change, some cannot.
Some believe the change is merely reverting back to default natural status at birth, and not really changing orientation
So like someone's expression of identity as Muslim or Christian, atheist, liberal prochoice, or conservative prolife,
I believe in treating one's beliefs about LGBT as a CREED and not denying disparaging or harassing people regardless
what their views are, why, and if these change or not. Some people cannot help and cannot change how they believe.
And that goes for both sides!

McHugh is not one of the top psychiatrists, unless you follow that with one of the top most discredited. It most certainly is genetic - otherwise, feel free to explain how every mammal has a percentage of offspring that have same sex relations. Again, it's a straight up lie that anyone has actually been converted. The few people that "stuck", numbering under 5-10, were already determined to be bisexual, and just stopped sleeping with men for the time being. You seem to confuse the sex act with the sexual preference - they are not the same. Anyone can be forced into a SS act, it doesn't mean they are gay. Anyone can be forced into a heterosexual act, it doesn't mean they are straight. It's not spiritually determined - if it is, explain those gay mice. Or even beyond mammals, explain the gay ducks.. How do you explain atheist gays? You are too focused on making everyone happy - it has been proven (McHugh is about the last person of name standing, against the millions with the exact opposite opinion). No one can change, they can simply abstain - and what usually happens is one of two things - they "backslide", resuming SS relations, or two, they kill themselves. I lost a dear friend that way in high school.

It matters not what is the underlying "cause" or reasons for why people are gay. The bottom line is that everyone has the Constitutional right to life & liberty and everyone has the fundamental right to marry the person of their choice, with the exceptions generated by compelling interests, such as minors and consent.

 

[rightwinger]

Government is in the marriage business...

They certify it and make it legal
They provide tax breaks
They provide spousal protections for survivorship and medical care
They supervise the dissolution of marriage

What do you want them to stop doing?

Dear rightwinger
I'm saying if people per state do not agree on terms of marriage,
because of conflicting beliefs, then either revise the laws
such as neutral terms of civil unions if civil marriage isn't neutral enough
and/or even separating terms of benefits by party so people can
choose what they believe in, without imposing on equal choice beliefs and rights of others.

Either agree on a state policy so nobody is arguing about discrimination
or violation of beliefs, ie mediating and resolving all conflicts so laws are neutral,
and/or separate policies for funding and managing benefits if people cannot agree
due to their beliefs.

The Supreme Court has already ruled that as unconstitutional. Equal protection of our laws

How do you resolve married gay people moving between the states?
They are married or they are not

Dear rightwinger
States retain the right to manage their own civil unions and definitions.
if they recognize gay marriage as marriage that's up to each state.
If they only recognize civil unions, then that's what it's called in that state.

Some states don't require car insurance, if the driver has "ability to pay" and can prove it.
So in that state, the same driver with the same car is under different rules.

States like Nevada have legalized prostitution, that only applies in that state.

For national policies on health care and other social benefits,
I recommend to my fellow progressive Democrats and Greens
to organize by party. So people can have collective representation
and management of resources to fund policies that correspond
and represent beliefs in marriage, health care, prison alternatives,
educational priorities, etc.

if not everyone agrees on social policies through federal govt.
AND by the Platform of the Veterans Party of America
"ALL social legislation is Unconstitutional"
then why not manage it by party and have taxpayers
pay directly into the programs of choice?

I know tons of progressives who believe in paying
for education and health care instead of funding
war and the death penalty.

Why not give taxpayers that choice?

If it's organized by party then the responsibility
for all the terms and agreements is delegated
to one national group to represent its members,
similar to states being responsible for representing its citizens.

Just proportionally delegate federal budgets to allot
money to states, and states divide it by party by
proportion of taxpayers and taxmoney coming in.
so if GOP do not want to pay to federal govt
except for military, they don't get federal funds for health care
except for VA/vets if that's all they approve.
If Dems want singlepayer health care and no death penalty,
then that's where their tax money goes or doesn't go.

So each pays for their share and their members
work out their terms and conditions, from prolife
to gay marriage, whatever they believe or don't believe in.

If states can agree, then it's done by state.

This is if the population of states CAN'T agree,
why not create two separate tracks and let
taxpayers choose just like we do when we
donate to parties or vote for platforms and reps.

In all that verbal diarrhea you failed to answer a simple question

With each state deciding same sex marriage is allowed or not, how do you handle gay couples traveling between states?

Try to answer in less than 50 words

I answered that already rightwinger
each state has its own laws whether calling it marriage,
civil marriage, civil unions.

And I also offered another alternative rather than depending on states.
If people managed social benefits by party, that can be independent of state.

What part of my answer did you not get
and I will explain it again.

I answered two different ways
1. one is if you go state by state which I answered would differ by state
2. the other is is you go by party (or religious affiliation) no matter what state you are in
that's the benefit of organizing and managing social benefits by party,
it can be national without going through state or federal govt

There are lots of nonprofits that organize member benefits
nationally or even internationally and this is all private choice.

You still don't get it

First off...allowing same sex marriage by party or religious affiliation means gays can change religion or party in order to get married

You avoid the key issue. What happens when a married, same sex couple either travels or moves to a state where it is not recognized?

If a partner becomes seriously ill, does the spouse lose all marital rights?
What happens to the children of a same sex marriage when they move to a state that bans it?
If you move to a state that bans it....are you effectively divorced or just a non-person?

 

[Faun]

I said no such thing. Stop misrepresenting what I say. I said anyone who believes civil marriage is not secular is delusional.

I did not say that anyone who objects to marriage laws implemented in that manner is "delusional."

And we're not doing away with marriage altogether because some folks find it objectionable any more than we're doing away with marriage because some folks object to interfaith marriage; or any more than we're doing away with marriage because some folks object to interracial marriages.

You've failed to articulate any reasonable argument to reject same-sex sex marriage or doing away with marriage entirely for all.

YES I just pointed out the reasons.
that it is discriminating against people of either belief
to impose one way or another.

Whichever side of marriage laws govt takes, it leaves the other discriminated against.
People on both sides feel the other creed is establishing a bias in law and govt
unless all the related issues are resolved.

So it is in govt and public best interest either to require
* consensus on laws including how they are written funded and enforced
* or separation of policies such as by state or by party if needed to solve the conflicts.

Thanks Faun

As you've been told before, even though you can't understand it, same-sex marriage is not being imposed upon anyone who doesn't want it.

I answered this before, several times.

I compared it with atheists removing a cross from public property that "isn't imposing Christianity on the atheist"

If an atheist can remove references to a Cross or God or Bible, THAT ISN'T FORCING ANYONE TO CHANGE WHO DOESN'T WANT TO,
then so can people similarly remove references to "marriage."

Same principle. Faun

In the case of a one cross that was ordered removed or pay fines per day,
the case was settled by transferring the property to a private institution.

So I argue the same can be done "if people in each state can't agree to terms"
they can agree to transfer marriage to private institutions or even parties,
"if all they can agree to is civil unions through the state."

Sure Faun it is possible for people to agre e to the term marriage or civil marriage.
And it's also possible for people to quit removing references to:
Crosses
Prayers
God
Jesus
creation
etc.
from public institutions and agree to be tolerant and inclusive of everyone's beliefs
and right to express them equally as LGBT expressions and practices,
and NOT just the ones that fit their political beliefs and agenda.

Or that's discrimination by creed.

Marriage laws are not discrimination because of creed. By the proverbial "you" not removing references to Crosses, Prayers, God, Jesus, etc from public institutions, you are violating the 1st amendment. I'm tolerant and inclusive of everyone's beliefs. I am intolerant if they are vocal and demand to violate the civil rights of others. Not allowing SSM violates the 14th amendment.

Why do you consider marriage generally as "human rights"? Relations and official marriage - is a different things. Marriage, instead of sexual relations, is a form of social agreement to make new members of society. Gay marriage cannot produce them - so, it's not a "human rights", it's a form of deception of society from some "active" people.

Huh? Are gay folks not human? Do they not have the same rights as straight folks? And marriage is about many aspects, reproduction is but one. Not everyone who gets married has kids; yet they still have the right to get married. And many couples who do marry, whether opposite-sex or same-sex, raise families through adoption.

 

[Sneekin]

I said no such thing. Stop misrepresenting what I say. I said anyone who believes civil marriage is not secular is delusional.

I did not say that anyone who objects to marriage laws implemented in that manner is "delusional."

And we're not doing away with marriage altogether because some folks find it objectionable any more than we're doing away with marriage because some folks object to interfaith marriage; or any more than we're doing away with marriage because some folks object to interracial marriages.

You've failed to articulate any reasonable argument to reject same-sex sex marriage or doing away with marriage entirely for all.

YES I just pointed out the reasons.
that it is discriminating against people of either belief
to impose one way or another.

Whichever side of marriage laws govt takes, it leaves the other discriminated against.
People on both sides feel the other creed is establishing a bias in law and govt
unless all the related issues are resolved.

So it is in govt and public best interest either to require
* consensus on laws including how they are written funded and enforced
* or separation of policies such as by state or by party if needed to solve the conflicts.

Thanks Faun

As you've been told before, even though you can't understand it, same-sex marriage is not being imposed upon anyone who doesn't want it.

I answered this before, several times.

I compared it with atheists removing a cross from public property that "isn't imposing Christianity on the atheist"

If an atheist can remove references to a Cross or God or Bible, THAT ISN'T FORCING ANYONE TO CHANGE WHO DOESN'T WANT TO,
then so can people similarly remove references to "marriage."

Same principle. Faun

In the case of a one cross that was ordered removed or pay fines per day,
the case was settled by transferring the property to a private institution.

So I argue the same can be done "if people in each state can't agree to terms"
they can agree to transfer marriage to private institutions or even parties,
"if all they can agree to is civil unions through the state."

Sure Faun it is possible for people to agre e to the term marriage or civil marriage.
And it's also possible for people to quit removing references to:
Crosses
Prayers
God
Jesus
creation
etc.
from public institutions and agree to be tolerant and inclusive of everyone's beliefs
and right to express them equally as LGBT expressions and practices,
and NOT just the ones that fit their political beliefs and agenda.

Or that's discrimination by creed.

Marriage laws are not discrimination because of creed. By the proverbial "you" not removing references to Crosses, Prayers, God, Jesus, etc from public institutions, you are violating the 1st amendment. I'm tolerant and inclusive of everyone's beliefs. I am intolerant if they are vocal and demand to violate the civil rights of others. Not allowing SSM violates the 14th amendment.

Why do you consider marriage generally as "human rights"? Relations and official marriage - is a different things. Marriage, instead of sexual relations, is a form of social agreement to make new members of society. Gay marriage cannot produce them - so, it's not a "human rights", it's a form of deception of society from some "active" people.

Sbiker, first of all, note that they are civil rights, constitutional rights. Next, sbiker, note that marriage most certainly is not a form of social agreement to make new members of society. My father and stepmother entered into marriage after the death of my mother. My stepmother was told by her doctor she would die if she became pregnant. When I entered the working world, I encountered literally thousands of people not wishing to have children - ever. Using your logic, the elderly, infirm, and those not wanting children should not be permitted to get married. This includes the millions of men and women with fertility problems. Gay people have, and do have children. Especially those in their 40's, 50's and beyond, who under societal pressure, married and had children. They also adopt, they are now using surrogates at a higher percentage that heterosexuals.

It's not a form of deception. It's a fact of life. You cannot deny my child the right to get married if she's infertile, or if her spouse is infertile, or if they decide not to have children. You cannot deny her the right to get married if she is gay, either. Better get your facts straight. Marriage is not about making more children. Marriage is a civil contract between two people (not two and some expected offspring) who meet the criteria for marriage (age, familial relationship, etc) within the confines of law. The state laws in some states were overturned because they violated the 14th amendment. Now move on, sbiker, and do some research. Also read all the posts - this was brought up early on, more than likely in the first 5-10 pages.

 

[Sneekin]

Emily, you are missing the big picture. You can't contest slavery, and you cannot contest SSM. Texas had a law prohibiting Sodomy (between two men) which was overturned in Lawrence V Texas in the early 90's. They had an Amendment prohibiting SSM. The courts, up to and including the SCOTUS found it to be in violation of the 14th Amendment. Roe v Wade was in the 70's. Your friends may not like any of them, they can complain all they want. They are law. As we found in Roe, some restrictions can be put in place. The same can't be said with SSM and slavery. Sorry your friends don't agree that the government doesn't have the right to rule, but the intent of the SCOTUS is to rule if a law is constitutional or not. Obergefell was ruled, and it was determined that Texas and a few others were wrong, their amendment/laws were invalidated. Your friends may not agree, but it's really a case of too bad, so sad, it's law. Are you wanting to overturn the 14th amendment as well?

I don't argue at all that unconstitutional bans be struck down because I agree with that part.
[I even believe Clinton and other politicians who passed DOMA owe restitution for costs and damages to taxpayers for passing an unconstitutional bill that people openly protested but weren't heard, same as with ACA mandates that were protested to begin with as unconstitutional. there should be consequence for that to ensure representation]

The part that I do not agree with is abusing govt to establish beliefs in marriage, either way.

Because beliefs are involved, people should decided by consensus, or someone's beliefs get discriminated against.
If they don't agree, then of course, the govt should not recognize that law which is biased against one sides beliefs or the others.

I also agree that bans on abortion had to be struck down because they
violate due process and discriminate by targeting women more than men,
when men are equally responsible for the sex and pregnancy, if not MORE in the case of rape and incest.

but striking down a bad law does not mean endorsing abortion as legal,
and people who don't believe in that can still argue to separate funding and policies to avoid
endorsing through govt what they believe is murder.

I do believe separating beliefs from govt should apply to all, even people I don't agree
or hold that belief to the same degree they do. Laws should remain neutral and all inclusive,
even if that means separating some policies so people can fund their beliefs accordingly
and not interfere with the equal choice of other taxpayers.

Sneekin

Emily, you can't ask anyone make restitution for DOMA - no one contested it. No one is abusing government to force people to change their minds. No one has changed their beliefs. Again, we are a republic, not a democracy, so beliefs cannot be voted on - or else, contrary to what you claim, if you vote on this belief, you will be guaranteeing discrimination, not avoiding it. You also appear not to have a firm grasp on how government works. You are unaware on how Roe worked - hint - it was primarily based on a woman's right to privacy. You cannot ever provide separate funding - that's discriminatory. If I'm not a taxpayer because I'm a 13 year old child raped by a father or brother, and pregnant because of incest, you claim I can't have an abortion? You are ludicrous. Laws remain legal. Laws are neutral - no one is forcing you to 1) get married; 2) if married, marry a woman; or 3) if married, marry a man. That's as neutral as it gets. That's all inclusive, as well. Taxpayers have a choice - get married or not, SSM or not. It fulfills your wishes of equal choice. You are claiming they have the right to straight up discriminate, and that is not true. I don't want to pay taxes today. Do I have equal choice to just say no, without penalty? NO. I don't want 33 percent going to the military, can I withhold that 33 percent without penalty? NO. We voted in representatives. They represent us. You are blaming them for voting the will of the people, and not your personal will. That's not government's fault.

 

[Sneekin]

Dear rightwinger
I'm saying if people per state do not agree on terms of marriage,
because of conflicting beliefs, then either revise the laws
such as neutral terms of civil unions if civil marriage isn't neutral enough
and/or even separating terms of benefits by party so people can
choose what they believe in, without imposing on equal choice beliefs and rights of others.

Either agree on a state policy so nobody is arguing about discrimination
or violation of beliefs, ie mediating and resolving all conflicts so laws are neutral,
and/or separate policies for funding and managing benefits if people cannot agree
due to their beliefs.

The Supreme Court has already ruled that as unconstitutional. Equal protection of our laws

How do you resolve married gay people moving between the states?
They are married or they are not

Dear rightwinger
States retain the right to manage their own civil unions and definitions.
if they recognize gay marriage as marriage that's up to each state.
If they only recognize civil unions, then that's what it's called in that state.

Some states don't require car insurance, if the driver has "ability to pay" and can prove it.
So in that state, the same driver with the same car is under different rules.

States like Nevada have legalized prostitution, that only applies in that state.

For national policies on health care and other social benefits,
I recommend to my fellow progressive Democrats and Greens
to organize by party. So people can have collective representation
and management of resources to fund policies that correspond
and represent beliefs in marriage, health care, prison alternatives,
educational priorities, etc.

if not everyone agrees on social policies through federal govt.
AND by the Platform of the Veterans Party of America
"ALL social legislation is Unconstitutional"
then why not manage it by party and have taxpayers
pay directly into the programs of choice?

I know tons of progressives who believe in paying
for education and health care instead of funding
war and the death penalty.

Why not give taxpayers that choice?

If it's organized by party then the responsibility
for all the terms and agreements is delegated
to one national group to represent its members,
similar to states being responsible for representing its citizens.

Just proportionally delegate federal budgets to allot
money to states, and states divide it by party by
proportion of taxpayers and taxmoney coming in.
so if GOP do not want to pay to federal govt
except for military, they don't get federal funds for health care
except for VA/vets if that's all they approve.
If Dems want singlepayer health care and no death penalty,
then that's where their tax money goes or doesn't go.

So each pays for their share and their members
work out their terms and conditions, from prolife
to gay marriage, whatever they believe or don't believe in.

If states can agree, then it's done by state.

This is if the population of states CAN'T agree,
why not create two separate tracks and let
taxpayers choose just like we do when we
donate to parties or vote for platforms and reps.

In all that verbal diarrhea you failed to answer a simple question

With each state deciding same sex marriage is allowed or not, how do you handle gay couples traveling between states?

Try to answer in less than 50 words

I answered that already rightwinger
each state has its own laws whether calling it marriage,
civil marriage, civil unions.

And I also offered another alternative rather than depending on states.
If people managed social benefits by party, that can be independent of state.

What part of my answer did you not get
and I will explain it again.

I answered two different ways
1. one is if you go state by state which I answered would differ by state
2. the other is is you go by party (or religious affiliation) no matter what state you are in
that's the benefit of organizing and managing social benefits by party,
it can be national without going through state or federal govt

There are lots of nonprofits that organize member benefits
nationally or even internationally and this is all private choice.

You still don't get it

First off...allowing same sex marriage by party or religious affiliation means gays can change religion or party in order to get married

You avoid the key issue. What happens when a married, same sex couple either travels or moves to a state where it is not recognized?

If a partner becomes seriously ill, does the spouse lose all marital rights?
What happens to the children of a same sex marriage when they move to a state that bans it?
If you move to a state that bans it....are you effectively divorced or just a non-person?

Emily, please address rightwinger - these sum up what we all have been saying in under 100 words.

 

[emilynghiem]

Dear rightwinger
I'm saying if people per state do not agree on terms of marriage,
because of conflicting beliefs, then either revise the laws
such as neutral terms of civil unions if civil marriage isn't neutral enough
and/or even separating terms of benefits by party so people can
choose what they believe in, without imposing on equal choice beliefs and rights of others.

Either agree on a state policy so nobody is arguing about discrimination
or violation of beliefs, ie mediating and resolving all conflicts so laws are neutral,
and/or separate policies for funding and managing benefits if people cannot agree
due to their beliefs.

The Supreme Court has already ruled that as unconstitutional. Equal protection of our laws

How do you resolve married gay people moving between the states?
They are married or they are not

Dear rightwinger
States retain the right to manage their own civil unions and definitions.
if they recognize gay marriage as marriage that's up to each state.
If they only recognize civil unions, then that's what it's called in that state.

Some states don't require car insurance, if the driver has "ability to pay" and can prove it.
So in that state, the same driver with the same car is under different rules.

States like Nevada have legalized prostitution, that only applies in that state.

For national policies on health care and other social benefits,
I recommend to my fellow progressive Democrats and Greens
to organize by party. So people can have collective representation
and management of resources to fund policies that correspond
and represent beliefs in marriage, health care, prison alternatives,
educational priorities, etc.

if not everyone agrees on social policies through federal govt.
AND by the Platform of the Veterans Party of America
"ALL social legislation is Unconstitutional"
then why not manage it by party and have taxpayers
pay directly into the programs of choice?

I know tons of progressives who believe in paying
for education and health care instead of funding
war and the death penalty.

Why not give taxpayers that choice?

If it's organized by party then the responsibility
for all the terms and agreements is delegated
to one national group to represent its members,
similar to states being responsible for representing its citizens.

Just proportionally delegate federal budgets to allot
money to states, and states divide it by party by
proportion of taxpayers and taxmoney coming in.
so if GOP do not want to pay to federal govt
except for military, they don't get federal funds for health care
except for VA/vets if that's all they approve.
If Dems want singlepayer health care and no death penalty,
then that's where their tax money goes or doesn't go.

So each pays for their share and their members
work out their terms and conditions, from prolife
to gay marriage, whatever they believe or don't believe in.

If states can agree, then it's done by state.

This is if the population of states CAN'T agree,
why not create two separate tracks and let
taxpayers choose just like we do when we
donate to parties or vote for platforms and reps.

In all that verbal diarrhea you failed to answer a simple question

With each state deciding same sex marriage is allowed or not, how do you handle gay couples traveling between states?

Try to answer in less than 50 words

I answered that already rightwinger
each state has its own laws whether calling it marriage,
civil marriage, civil unions.

And I also offered another alternative rather than depending on states.
If people managed social benefits by party, that can be independent of state.

What part of my answer did you not get
and I will explain it again.

I answered two different ways
1. one is if you go state by state which I answered would differ by state
2. the other is is you go by party (or religious affiliation) no matter what state you are in
that's the benefit of organizing and managing social benefits by party,
it can be national without going through state or federal govt

There are lots of nonprofits that organize member benefits
nationally or even internationally and this is all private choice.

You did forget one fact. The FEDERAL GoVERNMENT rolls up each of the 50 states and they are honored between each of the states. Civil Union is still illegal, you've been told at least 20 plus times. You cannot rename it for a class of people. You also can't manage social benefits by party, illegal as well. WHY can't you grasp that?

I am not saying only use it for a class of people. I am saying use NEUTRAL terms for EVERYONE.

In other words for each state
* if states use the term marriage then EVERYONE can get that
* if states use the term civil marriage then EVERYONE can get that
* if states use the term domestic partnership then EVERYONE can get that
* if states use the term civil contracts then EVERYONE can get that
* if states use the term civil unions then EVERYONE can get that

Whatever term states use is for ALL people inclusively or else NOBODY gets that at all.

I think Faun understands I am saying don't use the term marriage for ANYBODY if it can't be used for EVERYONE.

If people can't agree to terms of marriage for everyone then the state can't make those laws and force them on anyone using those terms.

If states agree that EVERYONE gets civil marriages, civil unions, domestic partnerships or whatever TERM that state agrees on, then that is neutral because everyone gets the same and nobody gets anything different from the state.

Sneekin if you are just caught up in what civil unions meant in the past I'm talking about the present and future not the past: if people in a state do not believe in states endorsing gay or same sex "marriages" they can be offered the choice either make ALL marriages open to ALL couples or make ALL couples only get civil unions from the states or domestic partnerships or whatever people of that state agree to call the licensing.

That way EVERYONE is treated the same such as by only getting civil contracts through the state and getting marriages through whatever traditions they believe in addition to the neutral licensing through the state.

Sneekin that's fine if you want more, if you live in a state that agrees to recognize marriage for all people as endorsed and licensed through the state Great! I'm all for that if people of that state agree.

But if they don't agree on terms unless a different set up is used, as long as EVERYONE is subject to the same and NOBODY gets more or less through the state, then at least that is equal.

I'm sorry this isn't clear Sneekin
I don't know why it is not possible for ALL couples to get civil unions if that state cannot agree on terms of marriage.

But if you have such conditions attached to the term civil union that it isn't a legal choice, that's how some people believe about marriage too !

So if you are saying no way can ALL people get civil unions but NO people should, then the same is true for marriage where either ALL people get to marry through the state or NO people should.

Just treat all people the SAME, either ALL or NONE, and that is fair to all people. Each state decides what terms it's citizens agree applies to ALL people with no exceptions and that's neutral law!

And yes, it's totally fine if all people in a state agree to majority rule passing marriage for all people! But just like rules on references to religion, God. Cteation, prayer etc in schools it has to be by consent of the people where it is NOT the govt endorsing any beliefs the public doesn't agree the state should endorse. Keeping it neutral is one thing, but language endorsing one belief or another can still be struck down as biased.

Thanks and sorry if this wasn't clear

 

[emilynghiem]

Emily, you are missing the big picture. You can't contest slavery, and you cannot contest SSM. Texas had a law prohibiting Sodomy (between two men) which was overturned in Lawrence V Texas in the early 90's. They had an Amendment prohibiting SSM. The courts, up to and including the SCOTUS found it to be in violation of the 14th Amendment. Roe v Wade was in the 70's. Your friends may not like any of them, they can complain all they want. They are law. As we found in Roe, some restrictions can be put in place. The same can't be said with SSM and slavery. Sorry your friends don't agree that the government doesn't have the right to rule, but the intent of the SCOTUS is to rule if a law is constitutional or not. Obergefell was ruled, and it was determined that Texas and a few others were wrong, their amendment/laws were invalidated. Your friends may not agree, but it's really a case of too bad, so sad, it's law. Are you wanting to overturn the 14th amendment as well?

I don't argue at all that unconstitutional bans be struck down because I agree with that part.
[I even believe Clinton and other politicians who passed DOMA owe restitution for costs and damages to taxpayers for passing an unconstitutional bill that people openly protested but weren't heard, same as with ACA mandates that were protested to begin with as unconstitutional. there should be consequence for that to ensure representation]

The part that I do not agree with is abusing govt to establish beliefs in marriage, either way.

Because beliefs are involved, people should decided by consensus, or someone's beliefs get discriminated against.
If they don't agree, then of course, the govt should not recognize that law which is biased against one sides beliefs or the others.

I also agree that bans on abortion had to be struck down because they
violate due process and discriminate by targeting women more than men,
when men are equally responsible for the sex and pregnancy, if not MORE in the case of rape and incest.

but striking down a bad law does not mean endorsing abortion as legal,
and people who don't believe in that can still argue to separate funding and policies to avoid
endorsing through govt what they believe is murder.

I do believe separating beliefs from govt should apply to all, even people I don't agree
or hold that belief to the same degree they do. Laws should remain neutral and all inclusive,
even if that means separating some policies so people can fund their beliefs accordingly
and not interfere with the equal choice of other taxpayers.

Sneekin

Emily, you can't ask anyone make restitution for DOMA - no one contested it. No one is abusing government to force people to change their minds. No one has changed their beliefs. Again, we are a republic, not a democracy, so beliefs cannot be voted on - or else, contrary to what you claim, if you vote on this belief, you will be guaranteeing discrimination, not avoiding it. You also appear not to have a firm grasp on how government works. You are unaware on how Roe worked - hint - it was primarily based on a woman's right to privacy. You cannot ever provide separate funding - that's discriminatory. If I'm not a taxpayer because I'm a 13 year old child raped by a father or brother, and pregnant because of incest, you claim I can't have an abortion? You are ludicrous. Laws remain legal. Laws are neutral - no one is forcing you to 1) get married; 2) if married, marry a woman; or 3) if married, marry a man. That's as neutral as it gets. That's all inclusive, as well. Taxpayers have a choice - get married or not, SSM or not. It fulfills your wishes of equal choice. You are claiming they have the right to straight up discriminate, and that is not true. I don't want to pay taxes today. Do I have equal choice to just say no, without penalty? NO. I don't want 33 percent going to the military, can I withhold that 33 percent without penalty? NO. We voted in representatives. They represent us. You are blaming them for voting the will of the people, and not your personal will. That's not government's fault.

I am contesting both DOMA and ACA as unconstitutional Sneekin
It's against the Constitution and Code of Ethics for Govt Service to pass discriminatory laws that should have been caught and revised in the first place to represent ALL people's beliefs and NOT waste taxpayers resources fighting after the fact.

If your consent and beliefs were not violated you don't have to contest it.

But my beliefs ARE violated every time laws and ruling are passed involving beliefs where one side gets endorsed or excluded by the state in favor of the other belief.

Sneekin imagine if you are like me, and if the progay rights are violated OR if the antigay beliefs are violated then either way my beliefs in consensus on laws are violated. Imagine that with prolife and prochoice, that by my constitutional beliefs about political beliefs both sides have to agree to how laws are written and enforced in order to be fully constitutional by my beliefs.

Same with gun rights, and with every partisan election. My beliefs are constantly violated because the majority believes that political beliefs do have the right to impose on others through Govt while I believe in consent of the governed as the final check.

SO yes I do believe I have the right to ASK for correction and restitution. But by consent of the governed if people don't agree I can't force my political beliefs on anyone.

I can just ASK that they be respected.

Is that clear? Thanks !

 

[Faun]

The Supreme Court has already ruled that as unconstitutional. Equal protection of our laws

How do you resolve married gay people moving between the states?
They are married or they are not

Dear rightwinger
States retain the right to manage their own civil unions and definitions.
if they recognize gay marriage as marriage that's up to each state.
If they only recognize civil unions, then that's what it's called in that state.

Some states don't require car insurance, if the driver has "ability to pay" and can prove it.
So in that state, the same driver with the same car is under different rules.

States like Nevada have legalized prostitution, that only applies in that state.

For national policies on health care and other social benefits,
I recommend to my fellow progressive Democrats and Greens
to organize by party. So people can have collective representation
and management of resources to fund policies that correspond
and represent beliefs in marriage, health care, prison alternatives,
educational priorities, etc.

if not everyone agrees on social policies through federal govt.
AND by the Platform of the Veterans Party of America
"ALL social legislation is Unconstitutional"
then why not manage it by party and have taxpayers
pay directly into the programs of choice?

I know tons of progressives who believe in paying
for education and health care instead of funding
war and the death penalty.

Why not give taxpayers that choice?

If it's organized by party then the responsibility
for all the terms and agreements is delegated
to one national group to represent its members,
similar to states being responsible for representing its citizens.

Just proportionally delegate federal budgets to allot
money to states, and states divide it by party by
proportion of taxpayers and taxmoney coming in.
so if GOP do not want to pay to federal govt
except for military, they don't get federal funds for health care
except for VA/vets if that's all they approve.
If Dems want singlepayer health care and no death penalty,
then that's where their tax money goes or doesn't go.

So each pays for their share and their members
work out their terms and conditions, from prolife
to gay marriage, whatever they believe or don't believe in.

If states can agree, then it's done by state.

This is if the population of states CAN'T agree,
why not create two separate tracks and let
taxpayers choose just like we do when we
donate to parties or vote for platforms and reps.

In all that verbal diarrhea you failed to answer a simple question

With each state deciding same sex marriage is allowed or not, how do you handle gay couples traveling between states?

Try to answer in less than 50 words

I answered that already rightwinger
each state has its own laws whether calling it marriage,
civil marriage, civil unions.

And I also offered another alternative rather than depending on states.
If people managed social benefits by party, that can be independent of state.

What part of my answer did you not get
and I will explain it again.

I answered two different ways
1. one is if you go state by state which I answered would differ by state
2. the other is is you go by party (or religious affiliation) no matter what state you are in
that's the benefit of organizing and managing social benefits by party,
it can be national without going through state or federal govt

There are lots of nonprofits that organize member benefits
nationally or even internationally and this is all private choice.

You did forget one fact. The FEDERAL GoVERNMENT rolls up each of the 50 states and they are honored between each of the states. Civil Union is still illegal, you've been told at least 20 plus times. You cannot rename it for a class of people. You also can't manage social benefits by party, illegal as well. WHY can't you grasp that?

I am not saying only use it for a class of people. I am saying use NEUTRAL terms for EVERYONE.

In other words for each state
* if states use the term marriage then EVERYONE can get that
* if states use the term civil marriage then EVERYONE can get that
* if states use the term domestic partnership then EVERYONE can get that
* if states use the term civil contracts then EVERYONE can get that
* if states use the term civil unions then EVERYONE can get that

Whatever term states use is for ALL people inclusively or else NOBODY gets that at all.

I think Faun understands I am saying don't use the term marriage for ANYBODY if it can't be used for EVERYONE.

If people can't agree to terms of marriage for everyone then the state can't make those laws and force them on anyone using those terms.

If states agree that EVERYONE gets civil marriages, civil unions, domestic partnerships or whatever TERM that state agrees on, then that is neutral because everyone gets the same and nobody gets anything different from the state.

Sneekin if you are just caught up in what civil unions meant in the past I'm talking about the present and future not the past: if people in a state do not believe in states endorsing gay or same sex "marriages" they can be offered the choice either make ALL marriages open to ALL couples or make ALL couples only get civil unions from the states or domestic partnerships or whatever people of that state agree to call the licensing.

That way EVERYONE is treated the same such as by only getting civil contracts through the state and getting marriages through whatever traditions they believe in addition to the neutral licensing through the state.

Sneekin that's fine if you want more, if you live in a state that agrees to recognize marriage for all people as endorsed and licensed through the state Great! I'm all for that if people of that state agree.

But if they don't agree on terms unless a different set up is used, as long as EVERYONE is subject to the same and NOBODY gets more or less through the state, then at least that is equal.

I'm sorry this isn't clear Sneekin
I don't know why it is not possible for ALL couples to get civil unions if that state cannot agree on terms of marriage.

But if you have such conditions attached to the term civil union that it isn't a legal choice, that's how some people believe about marriage too !

So if you are saying no way can ALL people get civil unions but NO people should, then the same is true for marriage where either ALL people get to marry through the state or NO people should.

Just treat all people the SAME, either ALL or NONE, and that is fair to all people. Each state decides what terms it's citizens agree applies to ALL people with no exceptions and that's neutral law!

And yes, it's totally fine if all people in a state agree to majority rule passing marriage for all people! But just like rules on references to religion, God. Cteation, prayer etc in schools it has to be by consent of the people where it is NOT the govt endorsing any beliefs the public doesn't agree the state should endorse. Keeping it neutral is one thing, but language endorsing one belief or another can still be struck down as biased.

Thanks and sorry if this wasn't clear

There's already a word for it...

Marriage

 

[emilynghiem]

????

Dear Faun
Yes, it does constitute an establishment of beliefs
if govt is abused to impose EITHER beliefs about marriage
as "traditional only" or as "including gay couples and gay marriage"
where other people dissent because they don't share those beliefs.

BOTH of those are biases in beliefs.

Sorry Faun Only if the public or people in a state AGREE
to the laws can you or I say it isn't biased in beliefs. So that's what I am seeking:
true inclusion, neutrality and equal representation of all people of all beliefs.

If one side objects because their beliefs or rights aren't represented equally,
that means there IS A BIAS, or else why would they be objecting.

You are the one discrediting one side's beliefs as "delusional."

I'm the only one in this discussion attempting to include ALL beliefs equally
and find a way that doesn't discriminate against one or the other.

I don't consider LGBT beliefs or orientation a "delusion" or "hallucination."

So don't blame bias on me when I am trying to be all inclusive
and you already excluded other people's beliefs as delusions!

Shame on you.

And what is unconstitutional about the belief that gay people should be legally allowed to marry the person of their choice regardless of gender?

That this belief can be practiced under free exercise of religion,
which govt can neither prohibit or establish, without endorsing it through govt laws that everyone is under (except as written and enforced by consent of the people where beliefs are involved)

So if either side believes a law isn't neutral enough but is biased one way or another,
that is grounds for revising it until it is neutral enough to represent the public.

Faun

No one made the claim that same-sex marriage can be practiced under the freedom to exercise religion. This has been explained to you repeatedly and you just don't get it.

Seems you have nothing in terms of same-sex marriage being unconstitutional.

???

Dear Faun I don't know if you are living in a box or you just don't care or acknowledge the beliefs of others.
Am I really the only person you know making these arguments:
1. about states rights
2. about civil unions instead of marriage through govt
3. about right to marriage being a political belief that not all people agree to apply to gay couples?

REALLY?

Maybe it's because I'm in Texas.
And in Houston.

I have TONS of prolife Christian friends who do NOT believe abortion is a choice
and do NOT believe in the govt endorsing gay marriage as natural.

I have stated these over and over.

If you are just citing the court case in Obergefell,
well I know more people who contest that just like you would contest a court ruling endorsing slavery as legal property laws.

Sorry, but it's leaving out the consent and beliefs of other people in making that ruling.
(the most I can interpret it to include the gist of it,
is by religious freedom of course people have equal
rights to marriage, and that's why it's not govt jurisidiction to decide)

You don't count the beliefs of these other people.
It's not your fault, I think you truly do not see any violation occurring
so you think it must be delusional.

It's the principle, that govt should not impose ANY beliefs about marriage
that should remain the right of the people to CHOOSE.

The dissenters do NOT believe Govt has the authority to declare marriage
rights beliefs or practices one way or another.

That's the issue.

I think it's so fundamental that you are missing it.
You keep wanting to argue specific points,
when it's the whole thing that is objected to.

Sorry if I cannot explain what each and every person is arguing
who objects to this.

If you need to hear all the reasons and arguments (as each person
says it differently) give me time and I will collect and list these for you.

In general they don't believe and don't consent.
So I'm trying to find where they would agree.

Here is one way people are arguing Obergefell is unconstitutional overreaching by the judiciary:
Reclaiming the Rule of Law after Obergefell

And with the 4-5 decision, similar to the 4-5 ruling to approve ACA mandates
also contested as unconstitutional,
this seems to me to represent two sides of political beliefs,
that are split fairly evenly, and just the majority BELIEF
is being endorsed and enforced by govt. when both sides
represent EQUAL BELIEFS, thus I would argue why not
allow both choices, separate tracks and let people of
BOTH beliefs each have their separate way to treat them equally.

This isn't about abortion either. Why can't you make your case without dragging in all sorts of unrelated issues?

That aside, you made the claim that same-sex marriage can be practiced under the freedom to exercise religion. That's complete nonsense and something no one is claiming.

Either quote the portion from the Obergefell decision which sites freedom of religion or admit you have no position to stand on...

Dear Faun The reason is because the OBJECTIONS to gay marriage are coming from a wide range of reasons and sources. That's why I am addressing all the factors.

Same with abortion. There are at least 5 major issues I've found wrapped up in why people support or oppose abortion policies on different levels.

The correct way to address all these is give each factor and reason full attention to resolve ALL the conflicts around it.

Faun it is like a huge knot with layers piled on top, where to untie the knot and straighten it out
takes loosening up each string pulling in every direction. Instead of tightening these
ropes and knots, the goal is to unwrap each one in turn, so we can undo the deadlock.

People generally don't see all the layers.
It is very deep. In forming a consensus, and addressing each and every conflicting factor,
I've had to work backwards and dig up each and every objection and resolve them
in order to establish working relations and understanding with each person.

then we can work together to address which points we feel are the key.

With each person their points may be different!

So just because you throw something out as irrelevant to the legal issue,
doesn't mean that point isn't the real reason someone else is objecting.

By resolving all this, we CAN get to and stick to just the relevant points.
But Faun not everyone is objective on all points.
And the process has involved these other areas that affect
how we respond and process information and communicate that with others.

Thanks for your patience.
This is not as easy as it looks to you.

If we are going to have agreement on enforcing laws,
instead of bullying and harassing over LGBT issues,
this is a very necessary part of the process,
to understand the layers of human perception
that are part of the puzzle.

When we make laws touching on these spiritual issues,
that's what happens, it connects to other areas as well.

 

[emilynghiem]

Dear rightwinger
States retain the right to manage their own civil unions and definitions.
if they recognize gay marriage as marriage that's up to each state.
If they only recognize civil unions, then that's what it's called in that state.

Some states don't require car insurance, if the driver has "ability to pay" and can prove it.
So in that state, the same driver with the same car is under different rules.

States like Nevada have legalized prostitution, that only applies in that state.

For national policies on health care and other social benefits,
I recommend to my fellow progressive Democrats and Greens
to organize by party. So people can have collective representation
and management of resources to fund policies that correspond
and represent beliefs in marriage, health care, prison alternatives,
educational priorities, etc.

if not everyone agrees on social policies through federal govt.
AND by the Platform of the Veterans Party of America
"ALL social legislation is Unconstitutional"
then why not manage it by party and have taxpayers
pay directly into the programs of choice?

I know tons of progressives who believe in paying
for education and health care instead of funding
war and the death penalty.

Why not give taxpayers that choice?

If it's organized by party then the responsibility
for all the terms and agreements is delegated
to one national group to represent its members,
similar to states being responsible for representing its citizens.

Just proportionally delegate federal budgets to allot
money to states, and states divide it by party by
proportion of taxpayers and taxmoney coming in.
so if GOP do not want to pay to federal govt
except for military, they don't get federal funds for health care
except for VA/vets if that's all they approve.
If Dems want singlepayer health care and no death penalty,
then that's where their tax money goes or doesn't go.

So each pays for their share and their members
work out their terms and conditions, from prolife
to gay marriage, whatever they believe or don't believe in.

If states can agree, then it's done by state.

This is if the population of states CAN'T agree,
why not create two separate tracks and let
taxpayers choose just like we do when we
donate to parties or vote for platforms and reps.

In all that verbal diarrhea you failed to answer a simple question

With each state deciding same sex marriage is allowed or not, how do you handle gay couples traveling between states?

Try to answer in less than 50 words

I answered that already rightwinger
each state has its own laws whether calling it marriage,
civil marriage, civil unions.

And I also offered another alternative rather than depending on states.
If people managed social benefits by party, that can be independent of state.

What part of my answer did you not get
and I will explain it again.

I answered two different ways
1. one is if you go state by state which I answered would differ by state
2. the other is is you go by party (or religious affiliation) no matter what state you are in
that's the benefit of organizing and managing social benefits by party,
it can be national without going through state or federal govt

There are lots of nonprofits that organize member benefits
nationally or even internationally and this is all private choice.

You did forget one fact. The FEDERAL GoVERNMENT rolls up each of the 50 states and they are honored between each of the states. Civil Union is still illegal, you've been told at least 20 plus times. You cannot rename it for a class of people. You also can't manage social benefits by party, illegal as well. WHY can't you grasp that?

I am not saying only use it for a class of people. I am saying use NEUTRAL terms for EVERYONE.

In other words for each state
* if states use the term marriage then EVERYONE can get that
* if states use the term civil marriage then EVERYONE can get that
* if states use the term domestic partnership then EVERYONE can get that
* if states use the term civil contracts then EVERYONE can get that
* if states use the term civil unions then EVERYONE can get that

Whatever term states use is for ALL people inclusively or else NOBODY gets that at all.

I think Faun understands I am saying don't use the term marriage for ANYBODY if it can't be used for EVERYONE.

If people can't agree to terms of marriage for everyone then the state can't make those laws and force them on anyone using those terms.

If states agree that EVERYONE gets civil marriages, civil unions, domestic partnerships or whatever TERM that state agrees on, then that is neutral because everyone gets the same and nobody gets anything different from the state.

Sneekin if you are just caught up in what civil unions meant in the past I'm talking about the present and future not the past: if people in a state do not believe in states endorsing gay or same sex "marriages" they can be offered the choice either make ALL marriages open to ALL couples or make ALL couples only get civil unions from the states or domestic partnerships or whatever people of that state agree to call the licensing.

That way EVERYONE is treated the same such as by only getting civil contracts through the state and getting marriages through whatever traditions they believe in addition to the neutral licensing through the state.

Sneekin that's fine if you want more, if you live in a state that agrees to recognize marriage for all people as endorsed and licensed through the state Great! I'm all for that if people of that state agree.

But if they don't agree on terms unless a different set up is used, as long as EVERYONE is subject to the same and NOBODY gets more or less through the state, then at least that is equal.

I'm sorry this isn't clear Sneekin
I don't know why it is not possible for ALL couples to get civil unions if that state cannot agree on terms of marriage.

But if you have such conditions attached to the term civil union that it isn't a legal choice, that's how some people believe about marriage too !

So if you are saying no way can ALL people get civil unions but NO people should, then the same is true for marriage where either ALL people get to marry through the state or NO people should.

Just treat all people the SAME, either ALL or NONE, and that is fair to all people. Each state decides what terms it's citizens agree applies to ALL people with no exceptions and that's neutral law!

And yes, it's totally fine if all people in a state agree to majority rule passing marriage for all people! But just like rules on references to religion, God. Cteation, prayer etc in schools it has to be by consent of the people where it is NOT the govt endorsing any beliefs the public doesn't agree the state should endorse. Keeping it neutral is one thing, but language endorsing one belief or another can still be struck down as biased.

Thanks and sorry if this wasn't clear

There's already a word for it...

Marriage

Yes Faun that would be simple.
And so would declaring the Democratic platform
and beliefs about right to health care and right to marriage a
POLITICAL RELIGION
and be done with it.

We could AGREE to list out the political beliefs
that each person or group holds sacred,
agree to respect these as inviolate for those people
and requiring consent of the governed and consensus
on laws and reforms on any of these areas,
and stop the fighting over forcing one g roup's
beliefs over another's by domination or coecion.

I WISH it were that simple Faun I do!

But people like you see your stances as RIGHTS and not BELIEFS.
and so do the right to life,
and so do the right to choose
and so do the right to guns advocates.

So it goes in circles, each combating the sacred
cows that the other group draws a line in a sand for
and refuses to let govt cross that line.

We all have our beliefs, and until we agree
to treat them the same, we keep competing and
repeating the same patterns over and over,
taking turns trying to run over the other or
run them out of govt. But that doesn't make
that person's beliefs or rights 'go away" it just
makes them come back and try to defend them
again, back and forth.

Why don't we admit we have these sacred
rights and beliefs, and agree not to disparage them???

Seems simple to me Faun but
as you can see, it isn't easy to see when
it's YOUR beliefs that you are defending as rights.
When other people do that to you or me and take
something that isn't our beliefs and shove it in our
faces as law, then we can see that it should be a choice
and not forced by law. But not when
the shoe is on the other foot. Both sides are like that!

 

[Sneekin]

The Supreme Court has already ruled that as unconstitutional. Equal protection of our laws

How do you resolve married gay people moving between the states?
They are married or they are not

Dear rightwinger
States retain the right to manage their own civil unions and definitions.
if they recognize gay marriage as marriage that's up to each state.
If they only recognize civil unions, then that's what it's called in that state.

Some states don't require car insurance, if the driver has "ability to pay" and can prove it.
So in that state, the same driver with the same car is under different rules.

States like Nevada have legalized prostitution, that only applies in that state.

For national policies on health care and other social benefits,
I recommend to my fellow progressive Democrats and Greens
to organize by party. So people can have collective representation
and management of resources to fund policies that correspond
and represent beliefs in marriage, health care, prison alternatives,
educational priorities, etc.

if not everyone agrees on social policies through federal govt.
AND by the Platform of the Veterans Party of America
"ALL social legislation is Unconstitutional"
then why not manage it by party and have taxpayers
pay directly into the programs of choice?

I know tons of progressives who believe in paying
for education and health care instead of funding
war and the death penalty.

Why not give taxpayers that choice?

If it's organized by party then the responsibility
for all the terms and agreements is delegated
to one national group to represent its members,
similar to states being responsible for representing its citizens.

Just proportionally delegate federal budgets to allot
money to states, and states divide it by party by
proportion of taxpayers and taxmoney coming in.
so if GOP do not want to pay to federal govt
except for military, they don't get federal funds for health care
except for VA/vets if that's all they approve.
If Dems want singlepayer health care and no death penalty,
then that's where their tax money goes or doesn't go.

So each pays for their share and their members
work out their terms and conditions, from prolife
to gay marriage, whatever they believe or don't believe in.

If states can agree, then it's done by state.

This is if the population of states CAN'T agree,
why not create two separate tracks and let
taxpayers choose just like we do when we
donate to parties or vote for platforms and reps.

In all that verbal diarrhea you failed to answer a simple question

With each state deciding same sex marriage is allowed or not, how do you handle gay couples traveling between states?

Try to answer in less than 50 words

I answered that already rightwinger
each state has its own laws whether calling it marriage,
civil marriage, civil unions.

And I also offered another alternative rather than depending on states.
If people managed social benefits by party, that can be independent of state.

What part of my answer did you not get
and I will explain it again.

I answered two different ways
1. one is if you go state by state which I answered would differ by state
2. the other is is you go by party (or religious affiliation) no matter what state you are in
that's the benefit of organizing and managing social benefits by party,
it can be national without going through state or federal govt

There are lots of nonprofits that organize member benefits
nationally or even internationally and this is all private choice.

You did forget one fact. The FEDERAL GoVERNMENT rolls up each of the 50 states and they are honored between each of the states. Civil Union is still illegal, you've been told at least 20 plus times. You cannot rename it for a class of people. You also can't manage social benefits by party, illegal as well. WHY can't you grasp that?

I am not saying only use it for a class of people. I am saying use NEUTRAL terms for EVERYONE.

In other words for each state
* if states use the term marriage then EVERYONE can get that
* if states use the term civil marriage then EVERYONE can get that
* if states use the term domestic partnership then EVERYONE can get that
* if states use the term civil contracts then EVERYONE can get that
* if states use the term civil unions then EVERYONE can get that

Whatever term states use is for ALL people inclusively or else NOBODY gets that at all.

I think Faun understands I am saying don't use the term marriage for ANYBODY if it can't be used for EVERYONE.

If people can't agree to terms of marriage for everyone then the state can't make those laws and force them on anyone using those terms.

If states agree that EVERYONE gets civil marriages, civil unions, domestic partnerships or whatever TERM that state agrees on, then that is neutral because everyone gets the same and nobody gets anything different from the state.

Sneekin if you are just caught up in what civil unions meant in the past I'm talking about the present and future not the past: if people in a state do not believe in states endorsing gay or same sex "marriages" they can be offered the choice either make ALL marriages open to ALL couples or make ALL couples only get civil unions from the states or domestic partnerships or whatever people of that state agree to call the licensing.

That way EVERYONE is treated the same such as by only getting civil contracts through the state and getting marriages through whatever traditions they believe in addition to the neutral licensing through the state.

Sneekin that's fine if you want more, if you live in a state that agrees to recognize marriage for all people as endorsed and licensed through the state Great! I'm all for that if people of that state agree.

But if they don't agree on terms unless a different set up is used, as long as EVERYONE is subject to the same and NOBODY gets more or less through the state, then at least that is equal.

I'm sorry this isn't clear Sneekin
I don't know why it is not possible for ALL couples to get civil unions if that state cannot agree on terms of marriage.

But if you have such conditions attached to the term civil union that it isn't a legal choice, that's how some people believe about marriage too !

So if you are saying no way can ALL people get civil unions but NO people should, then the same is true for marriage where either ALL people get to marry through the state or NO people should.

Just treat all people the SAME, either ALL or NONE, and that is fair to all people. Each state decides what terms it's citizens agree applies to ALL people with no exceptions and that's neutral law!

And yes, it's totally fine if all people in a state agree to majority rule passing marriage for all people! But just like rules on references to religion, God. Cteation, prayer etc in schools it has to be by consent of the people where it is NOT the govt endorsing any beliefs the public doesn't agree the state should endorse. Keeping it neutral is one thing, but language endorsing one belief or another can still be struck down as biased.

Thanks and sorry if this wasn't clear

SIGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH...............................

The states already are using the term marriage. No one gets more Or less. I understand perfectly. You are trying to coin a new term for an existing word, marriage. You keep claiming it's religious, it's not. It's nothing more than a civil contract between two people. PERIOD. You cannot be married by a church, unless the pastor removes his "pastor hat" and puts on his "secular hat". End of Discussion, Emily. Why are you so hellbent on spending BILLIONS of dollars, to end up with the same problem. Can we just call it Chocolate Coconut Hot Fudge Malt? It would make just as much sense as your blather. And no, Emily, it cannot be domestic partnership. That has an entirely different set of rules, and it is normally offered by businesses.

You seem to think this is something to vote on. It's law already, since before this nation stood on it's own. It's a constitutional right and a civil right, and would be illegal to vote on it, Emily. It would take a constitutional amendment to do some of what you dream of doing, and you'll still end up with a two step process for Christians, and a single step process for secular marriage. Already law. Already agreed on. Already voted on by the states.

You stated "If people can't agree to terms of marriage for everyone then the state can't make those laws and force them on anyone using those terms." The terms of marriage are already in place, Emily. Please wrap your mind around that. It's not going to change. Even though you think Obergefell changed marriage laws, you are grossly mistaken. It simply struck down a separate law, which said marraige was between a man and a woman, which was in violation of the 14th amendment. Obergefell invalidated an illegal law, and left all of the rules of marriage (first cousins may or may not get married, no incest, must be of a certain age, etc) intact. Sorry. People are treated the same, I'd like you to provide evidence to the contrary. Two people, either 2 males, 2 females, or 1 or each can get married. That is nothing but same treatment, Emily.

You fail to grasp the concept of government, and how the constitution works. You will never get your way, there will never be a unanimous renaming of the word marriage that will be used in both a secular and religious manner. You may think you can do that, but it would be illegal. You haven't justified any reason to rename marriage to another name, other than you simply don't like the word, apparently. There are federal laws that address marraige across all 50 states. Every state currently has reciprocity - if you get married in Texas, I have to recognize it in Illinois. If you now call your marriage a domestic partnership, it wouldn't be recognized in Illinois. And you still haven't addressed what's supposed to be done at the federal level. You fail to grasp that your inheritance taxes are based on marital status. So you become domestic partners, civil unionists, civil marriage, but NOT marriage, then you will lose and have to pay a substantial penalty in inheritance tax. Since my state doesn't pander to your ideas, my inheritance tax stays intact. Try reading Windsor. In many ways more important than Obergefell.

United States v. Windsor, 570 U.S. ___ (2013) (Docket No. 12-307), is a landmark civil rights case in which the United States Supreme Court held that restricting U.S. federal interpretation of "marriage" and "spouse" to apply only to opposite-sex unions, by Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), is unconstitutional under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment; Justice Kennedy wrote: "The federal statute is invalid, for no legitimate purpose overcomes the purpose and effect to disparage and to injure those whom the State, by its marriage laws, sought to protect in personhood and dignity."

2013 - overturned DOMA
2014 - SSM recognized between states
2015 - SSM legal in all 50 states.

Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. ___ (2015), is a landmark United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held in a 5–4 decision that the fundamental right to marry is guaranteed to same-sex couples by both the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

You will note, this has noting to do with the first amendment and Freedom of Religion.

Please share with us why you are willing to spend billions of dollars at the Federal, State, County and Local levels in regards to existing laws (which normally must also have to be read, reviewed, voted upon by the public, etc, etc, etc) when the existing term Marriage is already in place at the civil level. You may not like it, but it is case law. Windsor is 3 years old. Obergefell is 1.5. The current president and the president elect both stated it's law, that's it, no further action will take place. I'm curious to see how you manage to override the President AND the President-Elect.

 

[rightwinger]

And what is unconstitutional about the belief that gay people should be legally allowed to marry the person of their choice regardless of gender?

That this belief can be practiced under free exercise of religion,
which govt can neither prohibit or establish, without endorsing it through govt laws that everyone is under (except as written and enforced by consent of the people where beliefs are involved)

So if either side believes a law isn't neutral enough but is biased one way or another,
that is grounds for revising it until it is neutral enough to represent the public.

Faun

No one made the claim that same-sex marriage can be practiced under the freedom to exercise religion. This has been explained to you repeatedly and you just don't get it.

Seems you have nothing in terms of same-sex marriage being unconstitutional.

???

Dear Faun I don't know if you are living in a box or you just don't care or acknowledge the beliefs of others.
Am I really the only person you know making these arguments:
1. about states rights
2. about civil unions instead of marriage through govt
3. about right to marriage being a political belief that not all people agree to apply to gay couples?

REALLY?

Maybe it's because I'm in Texas.
And in Houston.

I have TONS of prolife Christian friends who do NOT believe abortion is a choice
and do NOT believe in the govt endorsing gay marriage as natural.

I have stated these over and over.

If you are just citing the court case in Obergefell,
well I know more people who contest that just like you would contest a court ruling endorsing slavery as legal property laws.

Sorry, but it's leaving out the consent and beliefs of other people in making that ruling.
(the most I can interpret it to include the gist of it,
is by religious freedom of course people have equal
rights to marriage, and that's why it's not govt jurisidiction to decide)

You don't count the beliefs of these other people.
It's not your fault, I think you truly do not see any violation occurring
so you think it must be delusional.

It's the principle, that govt should not impose ANY beliefs about marriage
that should remain the right of the people to CHOOSE.

The dissenters do NOT believe Govt has the authority to declare marriage
rights beliefs or practices one way or another.

That's the issue.

I think it's so fundamental that you are missing it.
You keep wanting to argue specific points,
when it's the whole thing that is objected to.

Sorry if I cannot explain what each and every person is arguing
who objects to this.

If you need to hear all the reasons and arguments (as each person
says it differently) give me time and I will collect and list these for you.

In general they don't believe and don't consent.
So I'm trying to find where they would agree.

Here is one way people are arguing Obergefell is unconstitutional overreaching by the judiciary:
Reclaiming the Rule of Law after Obergefell

And with the 4-5 decision, similar to the 4-5 ruling to approve ACA mandates
also contested as unconstitutional,
this seems to me to represent two sides of political beliefs,
that are split fairly evenly, and just the majority BELIEF
is being endorsed and enforced by govt. when both sides
represent EQUAL BELIEFS, thus I would argue why not
allow both choices, separate tracks and let people of
BOTH beliefs each have their separate way to treat them equally.

This isn't about abortion either. Why can't you make your case without dragging in all sorts of unrelated issues?

That aside, you made the claim that same-sex marriage can be practiced under the freedom to exercise religion. That's complete nonsense and something no one is claiming.

Either quote the portion from the Obergefell decision which sites freedom of religion or admit you have no position to stand on...

Dear Faun The reason is because the OBJECTIONS to gay marriage are coming from a wide range of reasons and sources. That's why I am addressing all the factors.

Same with abortion. There are at least 5 major issues I've found wrapped up in why people support or oppose abortion policies on different levels.

The correct way to address all these is give each factor and reason full attention to resolve ALL the conflicts around it.

Faun it is like a huge knot with layers piled on top, where to untie the knot and straighten it out
takes loosening up each string pulling in every direction. Instead of tightening these
ropes and knots, the goal is to unwrap each one in turn, so we can undo the deadlock.

People generally don't see all the layers.
It is very deep. In forming a consensus, and addressing each and every conflicting factor,
I've had to work backwards and dig up each and every objection and resolve them
in order to establish working relations and understanding with each person.

then we can work together to address which points we feel are the key.

With each person their points may be different!

So just because you throw something out as irrelevant to the legal issue,
doesn't mean that point isn't the real reason someone else is objecting.

By resolving all this, we CAN get to and stick to just the relevant points.
But Faun not everyone is objective on all points.
And the process has involved these other areas that affect
how we respond and process information and communicate that with others.

Thanks for your patience.
This is not as easy as it looks to you.

If we are going to have agreement on enforcing laws,
instead of bullying and harassing over LGBT issues,
this is a very necessary part of the process,
to understand the layers of human perception
that are part of the puzzle.

When we make laws touching on these spiritual issues,
that's what happens, it connects to other areas as well.

Emily

What if I OBJECTED to your marriage for whatever twisted reason

Should the government accommodate my objections out of a sense of being fair to everyone's concerns

 

[Sneekin]

In all that verbal diarrhea you failed to answer a simple question

With each state deciding same sex marriage is allowed or not, how do you handle gay couples traveling between states?

Try to answer in less than 50 words

I answered that already rightwinger
each state has its own laws whether calling it marriage,
civil marriage, civil unions.

And I also offered another alternative rather than depending on states.
If people managed social benefits by party, that can be independent of state.

What part of my answer did you not get
and I will explain it again.

I answered two different ways
1. one is if you go state by state which I answered would differ by state
2. the other is is you go by party (or religious affiliation) no matter what state you are in
that's the benefit of organizing and managing social benefits by party,
it can be national without going through state or federal govt

There are lots of nonprofits that organize member benefits
nationally or even internationally and this is all private choice.

You did forget one fact. The FEDERAL GoVERNMENT rolls up each of the 50 states and they are honored between each of the states. Civil Union is still illegal, you've been told at least 20 plus times. You cannot rename it for a class of people. You also can't manage social benefits by party, illegal as well. WHY can't you grasp that?

I am not saying only use it for a class of people. I am saying use NEUTRAL terms for EVERYONE.

In other words for each state
* if states use the term marriage then EVERYONE can get that
* if states use the term civil marriage then EVERYONE can get that
* if states use the term domestic partnership then EVERYONE can get that
* if states use the term civil contracts then EVERYONE can get that
* if states use the term civil unions then EVERYONE can get that

Whatever term states use is for ALL people inclusively or else NOBODY gets that at all.

I think Faun understands I am saying don't use the term marriage for ANYBODY if it can't be used for EVERYONE.

If people can't agree to terms of marriage for everyone then the state can't make those laws and force them on anyone using those terms.

If states agree that EVERYONE gets civil marriages, civil unions, domestic partnerships or whatever TERM that state agrees on, then that is neutral because everyone gets the same and nobody gets anything different from the state.

Sneekin if you are just caught up in what civil unions meant in the past I'm talking about the present and future not the past: if people in a state do not believe in states endorsing gay or same sex "marriages" they can be offered the choice either make ALL marriages open to ALL couples or make ALL couples only get civil unions from the states or domestic partnerships or whatever people of that state agree to call the licensing.

That way EVERYONE is treated the same such as by only getting civil contracts through the state and getting marriages through whatever traditions they believe in addition to the neutral licensing through the state.

Sneekin that's fine if you want more, if you live in a state that agrees to recognize marriage for all people as endorsed and licensed through the state Great! I'm all for that if people of that state agree.

But if they don't agree on terms unless a different set up is used, as long as EVERYONE is subject to the same and NOBODY gets more or less through the state, then at least that is equal.

I'm sorry this isn't clear Sneekin
I don't know why it is not possible for ALL couples to get civil unions if that state cannot agree on terms of marriage.

But if you have such conditions attached to the term civil union that it isn't a legal choice, that's how some people believe about marriage too !

So if you are saying no way can ALL people get civil unions but NO people should, then the same is true for marriage where either ALL people get to marry through the state or NO people should.

Just treat all people the SAME, either ALL or NONE, and that is fair to all people. Each state decides what terms it's citizens agree applies to ALL people with no exceptions and that's neutral law!

And yes, it's totally fine if all people in a state agree to majority rule passing marriage for all people! But just like rules on references to religion, God. Cteation, prayer etc in schools it has to be by consent of the people where it is NOT the govt endorsing any beliefs the public doesn't agree the state should endorse. Keeping it neutral is one thing, but language endorsing one belief or another can still be struck down as biased.

Thanks and sorry if this wasn't clear

There's already a word for it...

Marriage

Yes Faun that would be simple.
And so would declaring the Democratic platform
and beliefs about right to health care and right to marriage a
POLITICAL RELIGION
and be done with it.

We could AGREE to list out the political beliefs
that each person or group holds sacred,
agree to respect these as inviolate for those people
and requiring consent of the governed and consensus
on laws and reforms on any of these areas,
and stop the fighting over forcing one g roup's
beliefs over another's by domination or coecion.

I WISH it were that simple Faun I do!

But people like you see your stances as RIGHTS and not BELIEFS.
and so do the right to life,
and so do the right to choose
and so do the right to guns advocates.

So it goes in circles, each combating the sacred
cows that the other group draws a line in a sand for
and refuses to let govt cross that line.

We all have our beliefs, and until we agree
to treat them the same, we keep competing and
repeating the same patterns over and over,
taking turns trying to run over the other or
run them out of govt. But that doesn't make
that person's beliefs or rights 'go away" it just
makes them come back and try to defend them
again, back and forth.

Why don't we admit we have these sacred
rights and beliefs, and agree not to disparage them???

Seems simple to me Faun but
as you can see, it isn't easy to see when
it's YOUR beliefs that you are defending as rights.
When other people do that to you or me and take
something that isn't our beliefs and shove it in our
faces as law, then we can see that it should be a choice
and not forced by law. But not when
the shoe is on the other foot. Both sides are like that!

Sorry, that violates the Amendment 1 to the constitution. No state religion (let alone, by political party - and please address what happens when the democratic or republican party goes the way of the Whig party - are those married under those laws now invalidated?) We legally can't have laws applicable to a single political party, Emily. Where did you get your law degree at?

 

[Sneekin]

Emily:

Are you seriously saying that it would be legal for the Republican Party to be the only party to carry weapons,?? You are now hitting my career field - contrary to what you are claiming is legal, it is patently illegal to deny a class of people (this time, Democrats, Green Party, whoever) a right to employment? Or a right to marriage? Or that the green party can only have domestic partnerships, and the democrats only civil unions, and the socialist party none? Not only is it illegal, but pardon me, straight up stupid. Since marriage is state by state, have separate laws potentially, state by state, not to mention quadrupling the tax code for marriage, and 1138 other existing benefits.

 

[emilynghiem]

That this belief can be practiced under free exercise of religion,
which govt can neither prohibit or establish, without endorsing it through govt laws that everyone is under (except as written and enforced by consent of the people where beliefs are involved)

So if either side believes a law isn't neutral enough but is biased one way or another,
that is grounds for revising it until it is neutral enough to represent the public.

Faun

No one made the claim that same-sex marriage can be practiced under the freedom to exercise religion. This has been explained to you repeatedly and you just don't get it.

Seems you have nothing in terms of same-sex marriage being unconstitutional.

???

Dear Faun I don't know if you are living in a box or you just don't care or acknowledge the beliefs of others.
Am I really the only person you know making these arguments:
1. about states rights
2. about civil unions instead of marriage through govt
3. about right to marriage being a political belief that not all people agree to apply to gay couples?

REALLY?

Maybe it's because I'm in Texas.
And in Houston.

I have TONS of prolife Christian friends who do NOT believe abortion is a choice
and do NOT believe in the govt endorsing gay marriage as natural.

I have stated these over and over.

If you are just citing the court case in Obergefell,
well I know more people who contest that just like you would contest a court ruling endorsing slavery as legal property laws.

Sorry, but it's leaving out the consent and beliefs of other people in making that ruling.
(the most I can interpret it to include the gist of it,
is by religious freedom of course people have equal
rights to marriage, and that's why it's not govt jurisidiction to decide)

You don't count the beliefs of these other people.
It's not your fault, I think you truly do not see any violation occurring
so you think it must be delusional.

It's the principle, that govt should not impose ANY beliefs about marriage
that should remain the right of the people to CHOOSE.

The dissenters do NOT believe Govt has the authority to declare marriage
rights beliefs or practices one way or another.

That's the issue.

I think it's so fundamental that you are missing it.
You keep wanting to argue specific points,
when it's the whole thing that is objected to.

Sorry if I cannot explain what each and every person is arguing
who objects to this.

If you need to hear all the reasons and arguments (as each person
says it differently) give me time and I will collect and list these for you.

In general they don't believe and don't consent.
So I'm trying to find where they would agree.

Here is one way people are arguing Obergefell is unconstitutional overreaching by the judiciary:
Reclaiming the Rule of Law after Obergefell

And with the 4-5 decision, similar to the 4-5 ruling to approve ACA mandates
also contested as unconstitutional,
this seems to me to represent two sides of political beliefs,
that are split fairly evenly, and just the majority BELIEF
is being endorsed and enforced by govt. when both sides
represent EQUAL BELIEFS, thus I would argue why not
allow both choices, separate tracks and let people of
BOTH beliefs each have their separate way to treat them equally.

This isn't about abortion either. Why can't you make your case without dragging in all sorts of unrelated issues?

That aside, you made the claim that same-sex marriage can be practiced under the freedom to exercise religion. That's complete nonsense and something no one is claiming.

Either quote the portion from the Obergefell decision which sites freedom of religion or admit you have no position to stand on...

Dear Faun The reason is because the OBJECTIONS to gay marriage are coming from a wide range of reasons and sources. That's why I am addressing all the factors.

Same with abortion. There are at least 5 major issues I've found wrapped up in why people support or oppose abortion policies on different levels.

The correct way to address all these is give each factor and reason full attention to resolve ALL the conflicts around it.

Faun it is like a huge knot with layers piled on top, where to untie the knot and straighten it out
takes loosening up each string pulling in every direction. Instead of tightening these
ropes and knots, the goal is to unwrap each one in turn, so we can undo the deadlock.

People generally don't see all the layers.
It is very deep. In forming a consensus, and addressing each and every conflicting factor,
I've had to work backwards and dig up each and every objection and resolve them
in order to establish working relations and understanding with each person.

then we can work together to address which points we feel are the key.

With each person their points may be different!

So just because you throw something out as irrelevant to the legal issue,
doesn't mean that point isn't the real reason someone else is objecting.

By resolving all this, we CAN get to and stick to just the relevant points.
But Faun not everyone is objective on all points.
And the process has involved these other areas that affect
how we respond and process information and communicate that with others.

Thanks for your patience.
This is not as easy as it looks to you.

If we are going to have agreement on enforcing laws,
instead of bullying and harassing over LGBT issues,
this is a very necessary part of the process,
to understand the layers of human perception
that are part of the puzzle.

When we make laws touching on these spiritual issues,
that's what happens, it connects to other areas as well.

Emily

What if I OBJECTED to your marriage for whatever twisted reason

Should the government accommodate my objections out of a sense of being fair to everyone's concerns

1. to keep govt and other people out of marriage, that's why I'm saying to keep marriage out of govt!

PRECISELY rightwinger!

2. and yes, people do not have to recognize each other's "marriage" as in social or spiritual relations as a "couple" in order to honor the civil contracts and rights. Lot of families go through that, it happens. If a father does not accept his daughter marrying some guy he doesn't approve of, the govt cannot make him accept that guy as a "husband." if there is a financial contract, such as the guy owns the car or house his daughter is living in with her husband, of course, the father respects the legal and financial ownership that is secular. But does not have to respect someone "socially as a husband" if the father just doesn't respect that, that's his choice! And it doesn't have to interfere with respecting the guardianship and legal contractual obligations or duties that the guy has with the children. He can still be recognized as legal guardian without being accepted "socially" as the "husband" which is a personal choice.

So for the civil contracts and legal guardianships, that's a secular role. But no, the govt cannot make anyone recognize a social relationship any more than it can make you accept Jesus or God. that's personal choice and not the govt's business.

BTW rightwinger you also asked what harm is done by govt endorsing marriage for all people. the harm is if this isn't established by consent of the people, so it is govt imposing or establishing certain beliefs about marriage FOR the people, instead of the other way, where the people AGREE to form or reform the laws to reflect consent on a policy.

A law that is arrived at by consensus is different in spirit than a law imposed by opposing sides forcing their political will on the other. To make an ironic analogy, rightwinger, it's like the Difference between a marriage by CHOICE or a forced arranged marriage. I'm saying forcing the marriage laws on people where they didn't agree in advance is like a prearranged marriage where the people affected didn't have equal say in it. One partner may be thrilled but the other horrified at the decision. So that coercion causes harm, and it's better to arrive at laws and reforms by consent of all parties affected, especially with sensitive matters!

 

[Faun]

And what is unconstitutional about the belief that gay people should be legally allowed to marry the person of their choice regardless of gender?

That this belief can be practiced under free exercise of religion,
which govt can neither prohibit or establish, without endorsing it through govt laws that everyone is under (except as written and enforced by consent of the people where beliefs are involved)

So if either side believes a law isn't neutral enough but is biased one way or another,
that is grounds for revising it until it is neutral enough to represent the public.

Faun

No one made the claim that same-sex marriage can be practiced under the freedom to exercise religion. This has been explained to you repeatedly and you just don't get it.

Seems you have nothing in terms of same-sex marriage being unconstitutional.

???

Dear Faun I don't know if you are living in a box or you just don't care or acknowledge the beliefs of others.
Am I really the only person you know making these arguments:
1. about states rights
2. about civil unions instead of marriage through govt
3. about right to marriage being a political belief that not all people agree to apply to gay couples?

REALLY?

Maybe it's because I'm in Texas.
And in Houston.

I have TONS of prolife Christian friends who do NOT believe abortion is a choice
and do NOT believe in the govt endorsing gay marriage as natural.

I have stated these over and over.

If you are just citing the court case in Obergefell,
well I know more people who contest that just like you would contest a court ruling endorsing slavery as legal property laws.

Sorry, but it's leaving out the consent and beliefs of other people in making that ruling.
(the most I can interpret it to include the gist of it,
is by religious freedom of course people have equal
rights to marriage, and that's why it's not govt jurisidiction to decide)

You don't count the beliefs of these other people.
It's not your fault, I think you truly do not see any violation occurring
so you think it must be delusional.

It's the principle, that govt should not impose ANY beliefs about marriage
that should remain the right of the people to CHOOSE.

The dissenters do NOT believe Govt has the authority to declare marriage
rights beliefs or practices one way or another.

That's the issue.

I think it's so fundamental that you are missing it.
You keep wanting to argue specific points,
when it's the whole thing that is objected to.

Sorry if I cannot explain what each and every person is arguing
who objects to this.

If you need to hear all the reasons and arguments (as each person
says it differently) give me time and I will collect and list these for you.

In general they don't believe and don't consent.
So I'm trying to find where they would agree.

Here is one way people are arguing Obergefell is unconstitutional overreaching by the judiciary:
Reclaiming the Rule of Law after Obergefell

And with the 4-5 decision, similar to the 4-5 ruling to approve ACA mandates
also contested as unconstitutional,
this seems to me to represent two sides of political beliefs,
that are split fairly evenly, and just the majority BELIEF
is being endorsed and enforced by govt. when both sides
represent EQUAL BELIEFS, thus I would argue why not
allow both choices, separate tracks and let people of
BOTH beliefs each have their separate way to treat them equally.

This isn't about abortion either. Why can't you make your case without dragging in all sorts of unrelated issues?

That aside, you made the claim that same-sex marriage can be practiced under the freedom to exercise religion. That's complete nonsense and something no one is claiming.

Either quote the portion from the Obergefell decision which sites freedom of religion or admit you have no position to stand on...

Dear Faun The reason is because the OBJECTIONS to gay marriage are coming from a wide range of reasons and sources. That's why I am addressing all the factors.

Same with abortion. There are at least 5 major issues I've found wrapped up in why people support or oppose abortion policies on different levels.

The correct way to address all these is give each factor and reason full attention to resolve ALL the conflicts around it.

Faun it is like a huge knot with layers piled on top, where to untie the knot and straighten it out
takes loosening up each string pulling in every direction. Instead of tightening these
ropes and knots, the goal is to unwrap each one in turn, so we can undo the deadlock.

People generally don't see all the layers.
It is very deep. In forming a consensus, and addressing each and every conflicting factor,
I've had to work backwards and dig up each and every objection and resolve them
in order to establish working relations and understanding with each person.

then we can work together to address which points we feel are the key.

With each person their points may be different!

So just because you throw something out as irrelevant to the legal issue,
doesn't mean that point isn't the real reason someone else is objecting.

By resolving all this, we CAN get to and stick to just the relevant points.
But Faun not everyone is objective on all points.
And the process has involved these other areas that affect
how we respond and process information and communicate that with others.

Thanks for your patience.
This is not as easy as it looks to you.

If we are going to have agreement on enforcing laws,
instead of bullying and harassing over LGBT issues,
this is a very necessary part of the process,
to understand the layers of human perception
that are part of the puzzle.

When we make laws touching on these spiritual issues,
that's what happens, it connects to other areas as well.

I don't care what the reasons of objection are -- you said same-sex marriage can be practiced under the freedom to exercise religion.

You can't back that nonsense up and it's the foundation of your argument.

You're done.

 

[Syriusly]

[Q
A law that is arrived at by consensus is different in spirit than a law imposed by opposing sides forcing their political will on the other. To make an ironic analogy, rightwinger, it's like the Difference between a marriage by CHOICE or a forced arranged marriage. I'm saying forcing the marriage laws on people where they didn't agree in advance is like a prearranged marriage where the people affected didn't have equal say in it. One partner may be thrilled but the other horrified at the decision. So that coercion causes harm, and it's better to arrive at laws and reforms by consent of all parties affected, especially with sensitive matters!

Loving v. Virginia.

Virginia did not want the Lovings to be able to be married because they were a mixed race couple. The Supreme Court overturned that state law- exactly as it overturned Obergefeil.

Now I understand you believe that the Supreme Court should not have overturned Virginia's law- because it 'coerced' the people of Virginia who were against mixed race marriage- but I think that the Supreme Court was correct.

Now apparently you don't want Virginia to have any marriage laws at all- even though that would mean 'coercing' the majority of Virginians to your point of view.

The Constitution will result in some citizens being unhappy with the laws- and some unhappy when their pet laws are overturned.

 

[Faun]

In all that verbal diarrhea you failed to answer a simple question

With each state deciding same sex marriage is allowed or not, how do you handle gay couples traveling between states?

Try to answer in less than 50 words

I answered that already rightwinger
each state has its own laws whether calling it marriage,
civil marriage, civil unions.

And I also offered another alternative rather than depending on states.
If people managed social benefits by party, that can be independent of state.

What part of my answer did you not get
and I will explain it again.

I answered two different ways
1. one is if you go state by state which I answered would differ by state
2. the other is is you go by party (or religious affiliation) no matter what state you are in
that's the benefit of organizing and managing social benefits by party,
it can be national without going through state or federal govt

There are lots of nonprofits that organize member benefits
nationally or even internationally and this is all private choice.

You did forget one fact. The FEDERAL GoVERNMENT rolls up each of the 50 states and they are honored between each of the states. Civil Union is still illegal, you've been told at least 20 plus times. You cannot rename it for a class of people. You also can't manage social benefits by party, illegal as well. WHY can't you grasp that?

I am not saying only use it for a class of people. I am saying use NEUTRAL terms for EVERYONE.

In other words for each state
* if states use the term marriage then EVERYONE can get that
* if states use the term civil marriage then EVERYONE can get that
* if states use the term domestic partnership then EVERYONE can get that
* if states use the term civil contracts then EVERYONE can get that
* if states use the term civil unions then EVERYONE can get that

Whatever term states use is for ALL people inclusively or else NOBODY gets that at all.

I think Faun understands I am saying don't use the term marriage for ANYBODY if it can't be used for EVERYONE.

If people can't agree to terms of marriage for everyone then the state can't make those laws and force them on anyone using those terms.

If states agree that EVERYONE gets civil marriages, civil unions, domestic partnerships or whatever TERM that state agrees on, then that is neutral because everyone gets the same and nobody gets anything different from the state.

Sneekin if you are just caught up in what civil unions meant in the past I'm talking about the present and future not the past: if people in a state do not believe in states endorsing gay or same sex "marriages" they can be offered the choice either make ALL marriages open to ALL couples or make ALL couples only get civil unions from the states or domestic partnerships or whatever people of that state agree to call the licensing.

That way EVERYONE is treated the same such as by only getting civil contracts through the state and getting marriages through whatever traditions they believe in addition to the neutral licensing through the state.

Sneekin that's fine if you want more, if you live in a state that agrees to recognize marriage for all people as endorsed and licensed through the state Great! I'm all for that if people of that state agree.

But if they don't agree on terms unless a different set up is used, as long as EVERYONE is subject to the same and NOBODY gets more or less through the state, then at least that is equal.

I'm sorry this isn't clear Sneekin
I don't know why it is not possible for ALL couples to get civil unions if that state cannot agree on terms of marriage.

But if you have such conditions attached to the term civil union that it isn't a legal choice, that's how some people believe about marriage too !

So if you are saying no way can ALL people get civil unions but NO people should, then the same is true for marriage where either ALL people get to marry through the state or NO people should.

Just treat all people the SAME, either ALL or NONE, and that is fair to all people. Each state decides what terms it's citizens agree applies to ALL people with no exceptions and that's neutral law!

And yes, it's totally fine if all people in a state agree to majority rule passing marriage for all people! But just like rules on references to religion, God. Cteation, prayer etc in schools it has to be by consent of the people where it is NOT the govt endorsing any beliefs the public doesn't agree the state should endorse. Keeping it neutral is one thing, but language endorsing one belief or another can still be struck down as biased.

Thanks and sorry if this wasn't clear

There's already a word for it...

Marriage

Yes Faun that would be simple.
And so would declaring the Democratic platform
and beliefs about right to health care and right to marriage a
POLITICAL RELIGION
and be done with it.

We could AGREE to list out the political beliefs
that each person or group holds sacred,
agree to respect these as inviolate for those people
and requiring consent of the governed and consensus
on laws and reforms on any of these areas,
and stop the fighting over forcing one g roup's
beliefs over another's by domination or coecion.

I WISH it were that simple Faun I do!

But people like you see your stances as RIGHTS and not BELIEFS.
and so do the right to life,
and so do the right to choose
and so do the right to guns advocates.

So it goes in circles, each combating the sacred
cows that the other group draws a line in a sand for
and refuses to let govt cross that line.

We all have our beliefs, and until we agree
to treat them the same, we keep competing and
repeating the same patterns over and over,
taking turns trying to run over the other or
run them out of govt. But that doesn't make
that person's beliefs or rights 'go away" it just
makes them come back and try to defend them
again, back and forth.

Why don't we admit we have these sacred
rights and beliefs, and agree not to disparage them???

Seems simple to me Faun but
as you can see, it isn't easy to see when
it's YOUR beliefs that you are defending as rights.
When other people do that to you or me and take
something that isn't our beliefs and shove it in our
faces as law, then we can see that it should be a choice
and not forced by law. But not when
the shoe is on the other foot. Both sides are like that!

It is that simple. No one has to abandon marriage in America because some people oppose same-sex marriage. Marriage is here to stay and it now includes marriage between couples of the same sex.