Gay marriage is not a constitutional right

[Sneekin]

Here Sneekin would it look like this chart.
If people can't agree on political beliefs
then instead of pushing them
from people/state to federal levels
(from right to left side)
then I'm saying organize political beliefs
by groups through each state, then connect
these nationally to have the same collective
advantage as federal govt but without imposing on people
outside that free choice to affiliate, fund and participate
(from left to right, from people across states to national
or even global since it doesn't have to go through federal)

View attachment 100341

OMG - what you are calling for IS ILLEGAL. How old are you? Do you realize that prior to the 70's, we had dixiecrats (democrats) that were more right wing conservative than republicans? We had republicans that were to the left of democrats, because the makeup in a lot of places was white color V blue color (union). Both had leftists and rightists. The parties didn't change overnight, they changed as persons left office in various states. There are caps on donations to dems and republicans - aren't you aware of any of these things? if it's people across states to National (or even global), since it doesn't have to go through federal...hmmm - you do realize that national and federal are the same, and people don't vote on national, federal and global issues? We have an electoral college. It elects the POTUS/VPOTUS, not you. Think before you talk, validate your statements, and then don't put them down here when you discover you are asking for illegal laws and actions.

Dear Sneekin:

1. What I mean by national is NONPROFITS can have national organization from local to state to national and even international.
Social benefits programs can be organized that way if people prefer that to running it through federal govt
and having to answer to taxpayers who don't agree with their social priorities and beliefs or terms in funding health care or welfare.

There is nothing illegal about setting up charitable or business corporations to manage member benefits collectively.
That might be one alternative to separate people's beliefs by likeminded groups, so they can work things out amongst themselves more effectively.

Like one huge church splitting into two or more denominations because they don't agree on women priests or on gay marriages, for example.

2. No, this isn't REQUIRING people to join a faith,
it's ALLOWING them the option of funding social programs through the affiliated network of their choice.
It doesn't have to be the actual political party itself, but using that system
to set up a network of likeminded contributors, and then those contributors
set up their own businesses or charities that manage the social programs.

The Clintons set up their own Clinton Foundation.
What if all the big Democrats and financiers organized a huge health care and
medical educational cooperative network?

Would that be "illegal" just because it connects people from local all the way up to national or international?
If it's completely voluntary to donate or invest in, isn't that within free enterprise to set up?

The licensing of corporations would still be done through States as normal.
But these could be national or global in scope, depending how they are set up.

Emily:

1. This has been tried and has failed numerous times. So....the government came on board, gave us welfare, SNAP, Section 8, etc. You can't be dependent on non-profits and churches to foot the bill - your simply shifting tax burdens around. Saying that you are foolish is an understatement.

Actually, you may want to give me some examples of 501c4's that take my money, combine it with other people's money, and then disburse moneys to me based on a 3rd party whim. Nope- give me some examples where this has worked. Make sure you read the tax laws governing 501c4's - there are a ton of rules, and some of what you suggest violates the law.
2. See 1 above.

3. Set up a clinton foundation type of arrangement for medical expenses for say democrats only. First of all, how would one prove what party they belong to? What would prevent me from saying I'm democrat and voting republican? What would prevent me from just saying I'm democrat when I'm not, or better yet, here's what happened at my former job. 3000 people joined a brand new HMO/CO-OP type of program. Over a thousand went to that insurance because they had medical conditions requiring surgery - expensive surgery. These people switched - the nationwide HMO went belly up after 2 years of existence. Too many out of pocket expenses as a startup.

If you don’t have a sizable membership base, it is difficult to negotiate rates with doctors and hospitals that are as favorable as those that bigger insurers can get. If you have to pay providers more than your competitors, you will have to charge your customers higher premiums. It is almost impossible to grow your membership if you have to price your premiums higher than your competitors.

I wish you well on your efforts. Just be forwarned - most businesses go belly up within 18 months. Insurance, even a non-profit 501c4 is even more likely to fail, based on the paragraph above. Establishing health care is on page 33 of the IRS document, giving you some of what you need to do to form a health care organization. You can't offer insurance, you must establish HMO. It also can't be an IPA.

 

[rightwinger]

Religious folks consider, gay marriage profaned marriage sacrament. Gay marriage - it's just a senseless imitation of one of main Church rituals. Does it mean, gay marriage is the same with marriage of Maria and Josef? Can you imagine the insult, you making to christians... In fact, it's an extremism...

Dear Sbiker
1. To some people yes it's totally unacceptable if not blasphemous and offensive and imposing on them and their beliefs so this either should remain private or not practiced at all
2. To some they may not agree, but still accept it, and only oppose as a public policy endorsed through govt. Like people who don't oppose but who accept and support Christianity but not to be endorsed through govt.
3. Some accept gay marriage and agree to have govt endorse it, and are either neutral either way, or who favor inclusion.
4. And some absolutely HAVE to have marriage equality Through Govt and cannot have marriage taken out for everyone in order to be equal. For some it's required or its not an equal right for all people.

So Sbiker given these beliefs, about 4 major leanings with variations of reasons and degrees.
How do you suggest states implement laws to treat all these beliefs equally?

Easy

If you believe same sex marriage is blasphemous......don't do it

If you love someone of the same sex......marry them

What is not fair about that?

rightwinger by keeping marriage out of govt,
yes, people are free to practice and don't have to answer to the public.

but if you are depending on licensing through govt,
that's where those terms should be as neutral as necessary
to prevent conflicts with other people who have equal say in how
laws are written and implements if these are through govt that is public.

I posted other arguments for privatizing marriage and only
managing civil contracts through govt, so this is perfectly clear and separate:

Marriage as a FREEDOM under the Constitution: Can it be practiced equally without relying on govt?

OK Emily

Take Government out of marriage...

Get married on a mountaintop by a hippie minister
Get rid of marriage tax breaks and joint filing
Go to a hospital and explain you want to make life or death decisions for you spouse
Have children and establish custodial rights
If you get divorced, go back to your hippie minister and have him decide distribution of property and childcare rights

Do that without government involvement

Yes rightwinger
and do NOT insist on hiring and renting services from vendors
who don't believe in gay or interracial or interfaith marriages,
so you don't have to sue them for discrimination!

Individuals are free to hate anyone they want...even you
Businesses are not treated the same

Our nation moved past "We don't serve negroes here" a long time ago

 

[emilynghiem]

No one's rights have been taken away and given to gays. Religious folks still have the right to marry the person of their choice.

Religious folks consider, gay marriage profaned marriage sacrament. Gay marriage - it's just a senseless imitation of one of main Church rituals. Does it mean, gay marriage is the same with marriage of Maria and Josef? Can you imagine the insult, you making to christians... In fact, it's an extremism...

Dear Sbiker
1. To some people yes it's totally unacceptable if not blasphemous and offensive and imposing on them and their beliefs so this either should remain private or not practiced at all
2. To some they may not agree, but still accept it, and only oppose as a public policy endorsed through govt. Like people who don't oppose but who accept and support Christianity but not to be endorsed through govt.
3. Some accept gay marriage and agree to have govt endorse it, and are either neutral either way, or who favor inclusion.
4. And some absolutely HAVE to have marriage equality Through Govt and cannot have marriage taken out for everyone in order to be equal. For some it's required or its not an equal right for all people.

So Sbiker given these beliefs, about 4 major leanings with variations of reasons and degrees.
How do you suggest states implement laws to treat all these beliefs equally?

Easy

If you believe same sex marriage is blasphemous......don't do it

If you love someone of the same sex......marry them

What is not fair about that?

rightwinger by keeping marriage out of govt,
yes, people are free to practice and don't have to answer to the public.

but if you are depending on licensing through govt,
that's where those terms should be as neutral as necessary
to prevent conflicts with other people who have equal say in how
laws are written and implements if these are through govt that is public.

I posted other arguments for privatizing marriage and only
managing civil contracts through govt, so this is perfectly clear and separate:

Marriage as a FREEDOM under the Constitution: Can it be practiced equally without relying on govt?

You can't get rid of marriage, Emily -- it's a right.

I'm not saying that.
I'm saying to separate these political beliefs and each system can have its own way of writing the same laws since they don't agree how to do it.

Alaska laws on murder are written differently than Texas laws, yet we agree murder is unlawful.

So why not separate how people or parties manage their own marriages or benefits. GALVESTON has its own social security for its citizens. Mormons have a two year temp system similar to Social Security.

why force everyone to agree to one system when they can't help their beliefs that are different. Some ppl put church authority and God first then govt follows and must be consistent not in conflict. Others put secular govt first as the default them view beliefs and religions as secondary and cannot be in conflictt.

I am saying both standards need to be met in order not to violate either one!
Like how laws on murder are agreed upon, regardless what order we put church or state authority where the two agree anyway. We need agreement on that level or else separate these legally

 

[emilynghiem]

Here Sneekin would it look like this chart.
If people can't agree on political beliefs
then instead of pushing them
from people/state to federal levels
(from right to left side)
then I'm saying organize political beliefs
by groups through each state, then connect
these nationally to have the same collective
advantage as federal govt but without imposing on people
outside that free choice to affiliate, fund and participate
(from left to right, from people across states to national
or even global since it doesn't have to go through federal)

View attachment 100341

OMG - what you are calling for IS ILLEGAL. How old are you? Do you realize that prior to the 70's, we had dixiecrats (democrats) that were more right wing conservative than republicans? We had republicans that were to the left of democrats, because the makeup in a lot of places was white color V blue color (union). Both had leftists and rightists. The parties didn't change overnight, they changed as persons left office in various states. There are caps on donations to dems and republicans - aren't you aware of any of these things? if it's people across states to National (or even global), since it doesn't have to go through federal...hmmm - you do realize that national and federal are the same, and people don't vote on national, federal and global issues? We have an electoral college. It elects the POTUS/VPOTUS, not you. Think before you talk, validate your statements, and then don't put them down here when you discover you are asking for illegal laws and actions.

Dear Sneekin:

1. What I mean by national is NONPROFITS can have national organization from local to state to national and even international.
Social benefits programs can be organized that way if people prefer that to running it through federal govt
and having to answer to taxpayers who don't agree with their social priorities and beliefs or terms in funding health care or welfare.

There is nothing illegal about setting up charitable or business corporations to manage member benefits collectively.
That might be one alternative to separate people's beliefs by likeminded groups, so they can work things out amongst themselves more effectively.

Like one huge church splitting into two or more denominations because they don't agree on women priests or on gay marriages, for example.

2. No, this isn't REQUIRING people to join a faith,
it's ALLOWING them the option of funding social programs through the affiliated network of their choice.
It doesn't have to be the actual political party itself, but using that system
to set up a network of likeminded contributors, and then those contributors
set up their own businesses or charities that manage the social programs.

The Clintons set up their own Clinton Foundation.
What if all the big Democrats and financiers organized a huge health care and
medical educational cooperative network?

Would that be "illegal" just because it connects people from local all the way up to national or international?
If it's completely voluntary to donate or invest in, isn't that within free enterprise to set up?

The licensing of corporations would still be done through States as normal.
But these could be national or global in scope, depending how they are set up.

Emily:

1. This has been tried and has failed numerous times. So....the government came on board, gave us welfare, SNAP, Section 8, etc. You can't be dependent on non-profits and churches to foot the bill - your simply shifting tax burdens around. Saying that you are foolish is an understatement.

Actually, you may want to give me some examples of 501c4's that take my money, combine it with other people's money, and then disburse moneys to me based on a 3rd party whim. Nope- give me some examples where this has worked. Make sure you read the tax laws governing 501c4's - there are a ton of rules, and some of what you suggest violates the law.
2. See 1 above.

3. Set up a clinton foundation type of arrangement for medical expenses for say democrats only. First of all, how would one prove what party they belong to? What would prevent me from saying I'm democrat and voting republican? What would prevent me from just saying I'm democrat when I'm not, or better yet, here's what happened at my former job. 3000 people joined a brand new HMO/CO-OP type of program. Over a thousand went to that insurance because they had medical conditions requiring surgery - expensive surgery. These people switched - the nationwide HMO went belly up after 2 years of existence. Too many out of pocket expenses as a startup.

If you don’t have a sizable membership base, it is difficult to negotiate rates with doctors and hospitals that are as favorable as those that bigger insurers can get. If you have to pay providers more than your competitors, you will have to charge your customers higher premiums. It is almost impossible to grow your membership if you have to price your premiums higher than your competitors.

I wish you well on your efforts. Just be forwarned - most businesses go belly up within 18 months. Insurance, even a non-profit 501c4 is even more likely to fail, based on the paragraph above. Establishing health care is on page 33 of the IRS document, giving you some of what you need to do to form a health care organization. You can't offer insurance, you must establish HMO. It also can't be an IPA.

Dear Sneekin
Have you looked at our prison system and VA. have you seen the millions in tax dollars wasted by public school boards and public housing for mismanagement even 12 million in one case in Houston that shut a district down. Taxpayers were never reimbursed by the wrongdoers.

So this isn't accountable.

If we did manage those resources effectively this CAN run as nonprofits that have to be held to account.

The key is answering to the people.

It can be a nonprofit business or LLC or whatever people choose locally as long as it represents the people paying in and participating to make sure it sustains and grows.

I would go with adding the Code of Ethics for govt service to Constitutional standards for these entities to follow.

Sneekin it can still be done through govt if people agree.

But as you pointed out, people do not agree on govt authority because we don't even view it the same way. You dont agree on mixing in beliefs with govt and neither do others agree on putting secular govt before their beliefs about social institutions and programs this can't be forced on them contrary to beliefs in free-market and charities that have freedom to counsel people spiritually as part of their services to reduce costs and make sure people aren't stuck in poverty or addiction.

We can microlending instead of welfare and forced taxation without representation. I don't believe in rewarding criminal behavior for running up costs while punishing law abiding citizrns for making more money where they are derived of liberty and income because other people committed crimes and cost taxpayer resources.

So I believe in funding and rewarding programs that work by giving the tax breaks or the credit for loans to people who chose to invest in more cost effective programs that break the cycle of crime and poverty.

A lot of these programs that work are faith based even if they are secular and can't be regulated or forced on people but work by free will. So it would be discriminating against people's beliefs and freedom to force them to pay for systems that punish law abiding independent efforts while rewarding dependence on govt that enables corruption and waste to go unchecked.

You can keep funding your own system of choice, but it's unfair to impose that on others. Just like the marriage laws, if you are going to allow gay marriage to be endorsed by states even if people don't agree, then why not open the door for others to follow their faith even if you don't agree.

Just let people invest freely and deduct from taxes.

BTW it's already legal for people to set up their own LLC, churches and schools as either business or nonprofit or both. So it's not a matter of laws since this is already a choice by law. It's a matter of will and consent if people agree to organize and do it that way.

 

[Syriusly]

[
In all these cases, MEDIATION and consensus would protect the rights of the people affected.
.

There is a reason why courts are a recourse when mediation doesn't work- because mediation doesn't always work.

The courts protect the rights of Americans from both legal abuse, and from civil abuse.

I refer once again to Loving v. Virginia- which you keep studiously ignoring.

How on earth do you "mediate" same sex marriage?

Who do you expect to mediate with......the bigots?

Dear rightwinger
As Faun and I both agree the civil laws are intended to be about the civil contracts only, we would mediate between people and parties of the diverse viewpoints and make sure the language is neutral and acceptable to all. .

Why would anyone not party to a contract be involved with the mediation of a contract?

If I contract to have a building contractor build my house- who would be involved in mediation besides myself and my building contractor?

 

[Syriusly]

Yes, 100% good question. On the other side, providing formal rights on marriage to gays is a act of freedom and rights defend - and it's good.
On the other side - it's an automatic discriminations of rights of children and religious groups. Why the government taking away rights from religious people and giving them to gays? Does gays REALLY need them, or it's just an "bright knickknack"? Does it really nessessary for all society, or only for some candidates to president, who want to get some additional votes from political active groups?

Offcourse - religious people usually don't want to vote, and children cannot - in fact, they just an easy target to plunder their rights under the sign of "human rights defence"...

No one's rights have been taken away and given to gays. Religious folks still have the right to marry the person of their choice.

Religious folks consider, gay marriage profaned marriage sacrament. Gay marriage - it's just a senseless imitation of one of main Church rituals. Does it mean, gay marriage is the same with marriage of Maria and Josef? Can you imagine the insult, you making to christians... In fact, it's an extremism...

Dear Sbiker
1. To some people yes it's totally unacceptable if not blasphemous and offensive and imposing on them and their beliefs so this either should remain private or not practiced at all
2. To some they may not agree, but still accept it, and only oppose as a public policy endorsed through govt. Like people who don't oppose but who accept and support Christianity but not to be endorsed through govt.
3. Some accept gay marriage and agree to have govt endorse it, and are either neutral either way, or who favor inclusion.
4. And some absolutely HAVE to have marriage equality Through Govt and cannot have marriage taken out for everyone in order to be equal. For some it's required or its not an equal right for all people.

So Sbiker given these beliefs, about 4 major leanings with variations of reasons and degrees.
How do you suggest states implement laws to treat all these beliefs equally?

Easy

If you believe same sex marriage is blasphemous......don't do it

If you love someone of the same sex......marry them

What is not fair about that?

rightwinger by keeping marriage out of govt,
yes, people are free to practice and don't have to answer to the public.

but if you are depending on licensing through govt,
that's where those terms should be as neutral as necessary

Jews and Muslims believe that eating pork is wrong.

Yet- pork slaughterhouses, and restaurants that serve pork are licensed by the government.

We do not stop licensing simply because some people's religious faith says something is wrong.

Let me put it another way.

I am an atheist- and I am happily married- I was civilly married. Why do you insist on doing away with an entire civil institution that I want- because some people of some faiths are opposed to gays having the same legal recognition as my wife and I have?

 

[Syriusly]

[
why force everyone to agree to one system when they can't help their beliefs that are different.

Everyone doesn't have to agree with one system. No one is forcing anyone to get civilly married to anyone other than to who they agree to marry.

The Lovings wanted to get married- so they went and got married- even though some people believed it was against their religious beliefs for a mixed race couple to get married. The Supreme Court said that was unconstitutional- and the Supreme Court is right.

 

[Faun]

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.

Consensus on marriage might be reached if hypocrites like you admit you don't tolerate Christian practices in public as you are demanding people tolerate LGBT beliefs expressions and practices in public policy!

If you want equal rights and respect Faun that means to respect the same of others but you DONT. You insist that people's beliefs opposed to gay marriage, which cause them to reject "marriage" applied to gay couples, are due to some delusion or other deficiency. Thus Faun you are discriminating against the beliefs of others as inferior yet demanding equality for LGBT beliefs which is contradictory. You think you are not discriminating or excluding others but you keep putting them down as wrong instead of treating and respecting the beliefs as equal as I am trying to do.

And then you put me down also for trying to find ways to include all beliefs in a consensus on laws.

Simply not true, Emily. Nothing is shoved in your face. Your religion is not forced to acknowledge SSM, nor are you. Your religion isn't forced to like or approve of it, and neither or you. You want to name it something different, which violates the constitution. If you can't grasp this, call an attorney. Faun isn't discriminating against anyone, he's STANDING UP FOR THE RIGHTS OF EVERYONE. YOU are the one advocating discrimination. He's never once said other valid beliefs are delusions or deficient - he was referring to both your comments, and the others who claim religion trumps the Constitution, and separate but equal. There is no such thing anymore as SSM and Straight marriage. There is JUST MARRIAGE. Please, try and wrap your mind around it, Emily.

Dear @Sn e ekin and Faun
NO, that's NOT what I am saying.
And Faun is also saying that I am misconstruing and misstating also.
Sorry about this, and let's try again to get this straight

A. for Faun
it's NOT that Faun is TRYING to exclude or discriminate against beliefs of those who don't believe in gay marriage.
But Faun does not get how these laws are doing any such thing!
So if there is no perceived imposition or "forcing" anyone, how can that be affecting those other beliefs?

I am saying it IS affecting them just by passing laws where govt is endorsing marriage,
and there are terms that people don't agree on.
It does not have to affect them directly, as in the actual marriage laws,
to affect them; just the fact that it is going through govt as a public institution
is enough.

So this is like saying how can legalizing abortion be affecting people who aren't involved in that choice?
this is for other people, not those who don't want abortion, who can still choose to abstain or prevent from getting involved in any such situation.

Well, as long as it is going through govt, and laws are public,
then ALL people who have beliefs about this would rather laws be consistent with their values.
And anything inconsistent is seen as an imposition of bias, which is especially problematic with anything seen as faith based.

Now Faun also does not see anything "faith based" or 'religious" about civil marriage laws.

so Faun I understand you do NOT INTEND to discriminate or impose on anyone else
because you sincerely see no harm or imposition happening whatsoever!

that doesn't mean it isn't happening.
Sneekin pointed out that my using the term "traditional" loosely was offensive and biased
because it didn't count other things as equally "traditional' which is NOT what I meant.
But still, if that word means something different to someone else, of course, I would
have to change it and not expect them to change their thinking about it because that word "doesn't have to mean anything offensive"

B. for me,
Again I am NOT saying that the marriage beliefs are being forced onto people in that sense.

I am saying that if people do not believe or agree on terms of policies
that are being endorsed by govt,
then it's THAT bias regardless of content that is causing a problem.

The fact that a law that doesn't represent all the people, but only those who see things a certain way,
and leaves out the people who believe differently,
is being PASSED and ENFORCED through govt without reworking it to INCLUDE the consent
of the overruled people, then this is causing the imposition.

Regardless of the content, if there are such differences in beliefs
that people cannot even SEE what imposition is occurring, while the others DO and are OBJECTING,
something is REALLY wrong with how that law is being written or applied.

There is something wrong with the process if people don't even get what
the other side sees right or wrong with it.

So it is inadverdently causing an imposition of bias.

Do you also support churches doing away with marriages?

 

[emilynghiem]

No one's rights have been taken away and given to gays. Religious folks still have the right to marry the person of their choice.

Religious folks consider, gay marriage profaned marriage sacrament. Gay marriage - it's just a senseless imitation of one of main Church rituals. Does it mean, gay marriage is the same with marriage of Maria and Josef? Can you imagine the insult, you making to christians... In fact, it's an extremism...

Dear Sbiker
1. To some people yes it's totally unacceptable if not blasphemous and offensive and imposing on them and their beliefs so this either should remain private or not practiced at all
2. To some they may not agree, but still accept it, and only oppose as a public policy endorsed through govt. Like people who don't oppose but who accept and support Christianity but not to be endorsed through govt.
3. Some accept gay marriage and agree to have govt endorse it, and are either neutral either way, or who favor inclusion.
4. And some absolutely HAVE to have marriage equality Through Govt and cannot have marriage taken out for everyone in order to be equal. For some it's required or its not an equal right for all people.

So Sbiker given these beliefs, about 4 major leanings with variations of reasons and degrees.
How do you suggest states implement laws to treat all these beliefs equally?

Easy

If you believe same sex marriage is blasphemous......don't do it

If you love someone of the same sex......marry them

What is not fair about that?

rightwinger by keeping marriage out of govt,
yes, people are free to practice and don't have to answer to the public.

but if you are depending on licensing through govt,
that's where those terms should be as neutral as necessary

Jews and Muslims believe that eating pork is wrong.

Yet- pork slaughterhouses, and restaurants that serve pork are licensed by the government.

We do not stop licensing simply because some people's religious faith says something is wrong.

Let me put it another way.

I am an atheist- and I am happily married- I was civilly married. Why do you insist on doing away with an entire civil institution that I want- because some people of some faiths are opposed to gays having the same legal recognition as my wife and I have?

Dear Syriusly it's not doing away with it. It's giving people the *choice* of either opening up the sake process for all people, or of changing it to just civil unions for all people and stick to just the secular contracts and remove the social attachments. People can CHOOSE to have marriage in addition, but there is no reason for govt to require a particular kind of social relationship in order to get a license and benefits for a civil partnership that is secular only.

At least give people that choice of how much to put into govt laws and language and how much to leave private. Either all people of a state agree, or they privatize the parts they don't agree to open up to all peopleas the policy thats going to be public.

Syriusly Sneekin Faun
Since it seems clear you don't agree with removing the social benefits but want to keep those managed by govt, what do you think of the idea of doing the same with spiritual healing prayer. And allowing tolerance and inclusion of that expression and practice, including rresearch and development so this can be offered to more of the public as a free choice. Spiritual healing works naturally in conjunction with science and medicine and doesn't work by coercion or force. So there is no imposition involved.

If LGBT beliefs expression practice and creed are going to be endorsed and written into govt laws, why not allow spiritual healing prayer as an equal alternative for people to choose.

I think that approach could also resolve this issue. Allowing equal beliefs may stop a lot of the pressure to resist and object other views, so instead of excluding one while pushing the other in a combative deadlock between beliefs that won't change, why not open the door to equal inclusion and let all people practice their beliefs just as freely without prejudice and assumption that they will try to impose? Why not have the agreement that NOBODY impose their beliefs and NOBODY sue to remove one belief or another from public schools or textbooks. Just vote and decide democratically as before without the stigma or rejection of faith based beliefs, if LGBT beliefs are going to be protected, then treat ALL people of ALL beliefs with tolerance and just ask nicely instead of suing if a conflict arises. So the demonization stops, and the bullying and discrimination against people for having different beliefs.

 

[Sbiker]

So many letters! Now I see, I'm discussing with lawyers

That's an offensive statement, seeing how over 90 percent of sexual abuse occurs in heterosexual "traditional" families.....

So what? (c) Metallica. Children really have a lot of problems in traditional families - so, let's add them another problem from homosexual? And 90% - it's because a part of this families so large, but probability of sexual abuse in homosexual families much higher...

Wrong - the Latin word was in use LONG BEFORE the origination of Christianity - several millenia, I'm sure.

Latin word was "Mas". "Marriage" formed in English, inherited from Latin

Wow - you have so little education, and have told no truths.

I could to predict much of your responces, but trying to solve problem not from lawyer sight of view, but breaking stereotypes. There are a lot of problems in both situation - to allow heterosexual of marriage or to forbid. And some of thes problems we really don't able to comprehend, because it concerns a large society phenomenons. What if our salvation will lead to demographic catastrophe in 2nd or in 3rd generation? It could be good for us, but what do you say about our grandchildren?

Maybe, it's just because US didn't have an enormous demographic losses from external aggression during all XX century, like we are...

 

[Sbiker]

No one's rights have been taken away and given to gays. Religious folks still have the right to marry the person of their choice.

Religious folks consider, gay marriage profaned marriage sacrament. Gay marriage - it's just a senseless imitation of one of main Church rituals. Does it mean, gay marriage is the same with marriage of Maria and Josef? Can you imagine the insult, you making to christians... In fact, it's an extremism...

Dear Sbiker
1. To some people yes it's totally unacceptable if not blasphemous and offensive and imposing on them and their beliefs so this either should remain private or not practiced at all
2. To some they may not agree, but still accept it, and only oppose as a public policy endorsed through govt. Like people who don't oppose but who accept and support Christianity but not to be endorsed through govt.
3. Some accept gay marriage and agree to have govt endorse it, and are either neutral either way, or who favor inclusion.
4. And some absolutely HAVE to have marriage equality Through Govt and cannot have marriage taken out for everyone in order to be equal. For some it's required or its not an equal right for all people.

So Sbiker given these beliefs, about 4 major leanings with variations of reasons and degrees.
How do you suggest states implement laws to treat all these beliefs equally?

Easy

If you believe same sex marriage is blasphemous......don't do it

If you love someone of the same sex......marry them

What is not fair about that?

rightwinger by keeping marriage out of govt,
yes, people are free to practice and don't have to answer to the public.

but if you are depending on licensing through govt,
that's where those terms should be as neutral as necessary

Jews and Muslims believe that eating pork is wrong.

Yet- pork slaughterhouses, and restaurants that serve pork are licensed by the government.

We do not stop licensing simply because some people's religious faith says something is wrong.

Let me put it another way.

I am an atheist- and I am happily married- I was civilly married. Why do you insist on doing away with an entire civil institution that I want- because some people of some faiths are opposed to gays having the same legal recognition as my wife and I have?

I heared, Jews don't eat only pork, stepping on ground. They have special pig farm, where pigs are living at steel grids above the ground - and their meat is acceptable...

Yes, some people don't eat pork - but they are people too! What is the reason to force them to eat pork only because someone, eating pork, want "to play in muslim too"?

There's no problem for gays to have any sexual relations they want. There's no any problems for them (especially, because they're "artistic" and "creative") to develop own, gay rituals for marriage and so on (I doubt, married gays really to plan live married all remained life - as tradition of marriage generally need ). Instead of it - they performing lawyer aggression against tradition forms of marriage. They no need to have own - they only want to destroy something, they don't have. That'a a main problem, as I see...

I am an atheist too (some church people hate me "for my cynicism"), but religion - is a phenomenon, we have to keep and learn, before saying "it's not a true, it's just a legend and obscurantism"... And close to it, we have to change tradition carefully because of mass psychology problems danger. How many drugs current people eating to correct problems of life? Does it correct price for our progress, or it's too much?

 

[emilynghiem]

No one's rights have been taken away and given to gays. Religious folks still have the right to marry the person of their choice.

Religious folks consider, gay marriage profaned marriage sacrament. Gay marriage - it's just a senseless imitation of one of main Church rituals. Does it mean, gay marriage is the same with marriage of Maria and Josef? Can you imagine the insult, you making to christians... In fact, it's an extremism...

Dear Sbiker
1. To some people yes it's totally unacceptable if not blasphemous and offensive and imposing on them and their beliefs so this either should remain private or not practiced at all
2. To some they may not agree, but still accept it, and only oppose as a public policy endorsed through govt. Like people who don't oppose but who accept and support Christianity but not to be endorsed through govt.
3. Some accept gay marriage and agree to have govt endorse it, and are either neutral either way, or who favor inclusion.
4. And some absolutely HAVE to have marriage equality Through Govt and cannot have marriage taken out for everyone in order to be equal. For some it's required or its not an equal right for all people.

So Sbiker given these beliefs, about 4 major leanings with variations of reasons and degrees.
How do you suggest states implement laws to treat all these beliefs equally?

Easy

If you believe same sex marriage is blasphemous......don't do it

If you love someone of the same sex......marry them

What is not fair about that?

rightwinger by keeping marriage out of govt,
yes, people are free to practice and don't have to answer to the public.

but if you are depending on licensing through govt,
that's where those terms should be as neutral as necessary

Jews and Muslims believe that eating pork is wrong.

Yet- pork slaughterhouses, and restaurants that serve pork are licensed by the government.

We do not stop licensing simply because some people's religious faith says something is wrong.

Let me put it another way.

I am an atheist- and I am happily married- I was civilly married. Why do you insist on doing away with an entire civil institution that I want- because some people of some faiths are opposed to gays having the same legal recognition as my wife and I have?

Hi Syriusly
for the analogy about pork and Muslims,
it's more like this:

1. Let's take something like the Jewish traditions of Kosher foods being embedded in business
and public policies. And some have argued this is violating separation of church and state,
but there are some practices in place, and people have accepted and tolerated them.

2. Now let's say a MUSLIM group says we want the same recognition as the JEWISH who
have their practices recognized in public policy.

So the court says sure, if Jewish laws are practiced so should Muslim laws be practiced.

And there are objections:
A. one group that favors Judeo-Christian beliefs but not Muslim rejects the new reforms.
B. one group says BOTH sets of rules should have be en removed from policy and kept private choice
if businesses want to follow them or not. but none should be forced or ENDORSED BY GOVT to begin with.
C. Muslims are yelling but if Jewish traditions get to be practiced, that's discrimination
if you don't let ours be practiced, too.

So again, the two choices are to remove all of them,
keep all of them as equal choices, or agree how to write laws
where both could be practiced by free choice without govt ENDORSING any one set of beliefs.

 

[emilynghiem]

What is the main purpose of marriage?

Irrelevant.

Marriage is a right. People get married for all sorts of reasons. Whatever their reason is, is up to them, not you, not the state. The state can't prevent a couple who qualify for marriage from getting married because they can't, or won't, procreate.

Hmm... You're, offcourse, right, if we discussing marriage as a preferable rights for spouses.

But rights of one people ends where the rights of another people starts... What about children? What about rights or every children to grow in normal, traditional family? Children - are either not a property of adults, not a mature members of society, who could completely understand own rights and psychologically able to defend them!

That's an offensive statement, seeing how over 90 percent of sexual abuse occurs in heterosexual "traditional" families..... not to mention, are you now saying adults are not responsible for their children and their actions? Better check your law books, bubba. That's another lie. I've worked with and also known (friends and family in SS relationships) that have children, and in every case, have done better jobs than what you refer to as "normal, traditional families". You are entitled to your own opinions, but you are now making up your own facts. This is settled law, and there already have been court cases over gays raising children - and in every one of those cases, gays won. I've been involved in court cases where grandparents have sued their ex son-in-law, who was a custodial parent, and involved in a SS relationship. Every time the mother-in-law's attorney started to produce an excuse, the father's attorney objected, producing state supreme court rulings in favor of the same sex parent, against the person suing. The judge removed the Children and Family Service invesigator for bias, and the father's attorney produced evidence that the grandmother had paid various expenses for the investigator. Sorry, but you just don't have your facts "straight". Children have rights, to a point. Not to mention, once they are 12-14 years old, they can pick the SS parent to live with anyway. Try fact checking.

OK Sneekin no harm intended
I'm okay using a different term besides traditional.

In all these cases, MEDIATION and consensus would protect the rights of the people affected.
it would PREVENT legal abuse of authority
in the cases as you describe where this gets
imbalanced and out of hand.

So that's another reason to require it in cases
where personal beliefs and relations are involved.

Except for the fact you are now trying to abuse our legal system and abuse the law. Requiring what you claim compounds the abuse. Your personal belief one way or another regarding SSM has no impact on race, color, creed, etc. NONE WHATSOEVER, EMILY. You claim we need to make exceptions for "ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL", with caveats - "Democrats can't have guns" "gays can't use the word marriage" "Abortions only for Democreats" - can't you even grasp the fact that your words and proposals VIOLATE the very words of the 14th amendment????

Dear Sneekin
No, saying gays can't use the word marriage is like saying Christians can't use the word God or Jesus.

It's in the context of public laws.
When you make public laws, the whole public gets equal say in them because everyone is affected.

So if you don't want to include other people's beliefs, then don't push yours into public laws.
And you don't have to answer to other people equally affected by the laws.

And they also have to include you also!
Both have to agree if these are public laws.
They are social contracts between people.

I made the analogy to marriage -- that partners have to agree to terms of marriage.
You don't write contracts by having one group write up the terms and force it onto others
who are required to be under it since it's a public law.

That's what Obama and Congress did wrong with ACA, created a business contract
with corporate insurance interests and "signed taxpayers up for it" to be responsible for terms
we didn't ALL agree to pay under!

If you are going to change the terms of a contract,
last I checked, all the parties to the contract have to agree to the changes in terms.

 

[emilynghiem]

???

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.

???

Faun
It backs itself up!
Once you apply religious freedom to your INALIENABLE belief in your right to marry whoever you want,
Then you DON'T NEED to "justify" your beliefs because your free exercise of those beliefs is INALIENABLE.

Do you understand INALIENABLE Faun

If your rights and beliefs depend on courts or govt before you can have them, then they aren't INALIENABLE

Im saying you don't need to and never had to justify your beliefs in right to marry.

So if you are the one disparaging your own rights, and insisting they depend on govt, or insisting your beliefs depend on "justifying" them, why are you blaming me for that? I said a Muslim does NOT need to justify beliefs about pork, nor an atheist need to justify beliefs about God or crosses or lack of belief, and people who do or do not believe in gay marriage don't have to justify that either because both are entitled to their BELIEFS and these are inalienable.

Sorry you believe you have to depend on govt for your rights. I think they are natural and free exercise of religion, beliefs, will and choice covers your right to marry already. Nobody can stop anyone from setting up a ceremony and getting married unless you do it in such a way that imposes or forces other people to be responsible who aren't required to believe endorse or participate in your ceremony if they don't want to.
Just like any other cultural or religious tradition, these remain voluntary choice and can't be forced on people by law.

Things do not back themselves up because you say they do. You have to prove your claims and you can't. You made the fallacious claim that same-sex marriage is practiced under the freedom to exercise religion.

Prove it by quoting the relevant text from the Obergefell decision saying anything about same-sex marriage is a right falling under the freedom to exercise religion...

As far as your nonsense that I depend on the government for my rights ... It's not that I depend on them for my rights -- I, along with everyone else, depends on ths government to secure my rights. That's a major role of our government. That's why gays can now marry the person of their choice just as straight folks can.

Dear Faun
It's up to people to defend our own rights and freedoms by enforcing laws.
People in govt and people outside of govt are equally responsible.

If we violate rights of others, that's when we invite the same to be done to us.

But when we RESPECT rights of others, they naturally respond by respecting ours.

It is one thing to use the democratic process to defend against discrimination,
such as arguing against DOMA as being unconstitutional.

Had people listened to PEOPLE DIRECTLY challenging this law TO BEGIN WITH
as UNCONSTITUTIONAL then it wouldn't get passed and then have to get struck down after the fact.

So that's what I'm saying again here.

If we already know there are objections, if we resolve those up front,
then the people "can petition each other directly" and settle most of those issues ourselves.

We can then write our own laws based on that agreement, and not create
more battles to fight by NOT listening in the first place.

So I think I'm a step ahead of this whole process
and working towards people acting as govt more directly.

 

[emilynghiem]

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!

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.

Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for supper

It is not up to government to impose what is most popular, it is to do what is right. Someone has to defend the rights of the sheep
In this case, the majority does not get to decide who you are allowed to fall in love with and who you are allowed to marry.
If someone says a white man marrying a black woman is "yucky"...it is not up to government to enforce it
Same concept applies if a woman wants to marry another woman

rightwinger
And people have to AGREE what's right
Or it's back to govt imposing beliefs on values by "other groups"
Both sides view the other as imposing beliefs, that's why consensus on laws is necessary to address any perceived bias deemed faith based exclusive or discriminating against "one set of beliefs or the other"

Bullshit. Rights are not determined by peoples' approval and consent. Your rights are not determined by my beliefs. A Christian's rights are not determined by Muslims' beliefs... black peoples' rights are not determined by white peoples' beliefs...

As you pointed out, rights are inalienable. The role of our government is to secure those rights -- just as they have done for gays regarding their right to marry the person of their choice.

Dear Syriusly

When you go through GOVT because that is public and mandatory for everyone,
you are in a sense seeking approval of the public who is supposed to be represented.

YES the AUTHORITY of LAW is DERIVED from CONSENT OF THE GOVERNED.

This is a Natural Law cited and expressed in many forms ranging from
* "no taxation without representation"
* "the just powers of government being derived from consent of the governed"
(Jefferson, Declaration of Independence: Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.)
* "All political power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority, and instituted for their benefit."
(Texas Constitution, Bill of Rights)

What makes the difference between civil law and order in democratic self-government
is people CONSENTING so that the laws REPRESENT their interests.

If you only have an oligarchy imposing rules for everyone else, without their consent,
then you end up with the tyranny that past generations rejected and decided to set
up a system of democratically managing a republic, including a system of reforming
itself, so that people remained free to check their own govt.

Contracts don't work if the people bound by them don't agree to the terms.
When contracts are written up, people go through them and make sure
their expectations, terms and agreements are clearly expressed and mutually
agreed upon BEFORE signing them.

Our laws are like that, but collectively between people and govt.
They are contracts but on a larger public scale, so it's even MORE
important to make sure everyone is on the same page so we enforce the same standards and terms.

 

[Sneekin]

Here Sneekin would it look like this chart.
If people can't agree on political beliefs
then instead of pushing them
from people/state to federal levels
(from right to left side)
then I'm saying organize political beliefs
by groups through each state, then connect
these nationally to have the same collective
advantage as federal govt but without imposing on people
outside that free choice to affiliate, fund and participate
(from left to right, from people across states to national
or even global since it doesn't have to go through federal)

View attachment 100341

OMG - what you are calling for IS ILLEGAL. How old are you? Do you realize that prior to the 70's, we had dixiecrats (democrats) that were more right wing conservative than republicans? We had republicans that were to the left of democrats, because the makeup in a lot of places was white color V blue color (union). Both had leftists and rightists. The parties didn't change overnight, they changed as persons left office in various states. There are caps on donations to dems and republicans - aren't you aware of any of these things? if it's people across states to National (or even global), since it doesn't have to go through federal...hmmm - you do realize that national and federal are the same, and people don't vote on national, federal and global issues? We have an electoral college. It elects the POTUS/VPOTUS, not you. Think before you talk, validate your statements, and then don't put them down here when you discover you are asking for illegal laws and actions.

Dear Sneekin:

1. What I mean by national is NONPROFITS can have national organization from local to state to national and even international.
Social benefits programs can be organized that way if people prefer that to running it through federal govt
and having to answer to taxpayers who don't agree with their social priorities and beliefs or terms in funding health care or welfare.

There is nothing illegal about setting up charitable or business corporations to manage member benefits collectively.
That might be one alternative to separate people's beliefs by likeminded groups, so they can work things out amongst themselves more effectively.

Like one huge church splitting into two or more denominations because they don't agree on women priests or on gay marriages, for example.

2. No, this isn't REQUIRING people to join a faith,
it's ALLOWING them the option of funding social programs through the affiliated network of their choice.
It doesn't have to be the actual political party itself, but using that system
to set up a network of likeminded contributors, and then those contributors
set up their own businesses or charities that manage the social programs.

The Clintons set up their own Clinton Foundation.
What if all the big Democrats and financiers organized a huge health care and
medical educational cooperative network?

Would that be "illegal" just because it connects people from local all the way up to national or international?
If it's completely voluntary to donate or invest in, isn't that within free enterprise to set up?

The licensing of corporations would still be done through States as normal.
But these could be national or global in scope, depending how they are set up.

Emily:

1. This has been tried and has failed numerous times. So....the government came on board, gave us welfare, SNAP, Section 8, etc. You can't be dependent on non-profits and churches to foot the bill - your simply shifting tax burdens around. Saying that you are foolish is an understatement.

Actually, you may want to give me some examples of 501c4's that take my money, combine it with other people's money, and then disburse moneys to me based on a 3rd party whim. Nope- give me some examples where this has worked. Make sure you read the tax laws governing 501c4's - there are a ton of rules, and some of what you suggest violates the law.
2. See 1 above.

3. Set up a clinton foundation type of arrangement for medical expenses for say democrats only. First of all, how would one prove what party they belong to? What would prevent me from saying I'm democrat and voting republican? What would prevent me from just saying I'm democrat when I'm not, or better yet, here's what happened at my former job. 3000 people joined a brand new HMO/CO-OP type of program. Over a thousand went to that insurance because they had medical conditions requiring surgery - expensive surgery. These people switched - the nationwide HMO went belly up after 2 years of existence. Too many out of pocket expenses as a startup.

If you don’t have a sizable membership base, it is difficult to negotiate rates with doctors and hospitals that are as favorable as those that bigger insurers can get. If you have to pay providers more than your competitors, you will have to charge your customers higher premiums. It is almost impossible to grow your membership if you have to price your premiums higher than your competitors.

I wish you well on your efforts. Just be forwarned - most businesses go belly up within 18 months. Insurance, even a non-profit 501c4 is even more likely to fail, based on the paragraph above. Establishing health care is on page 33 of the IRS document, giving you some of what you need to do to form a health care organization. You can't offer insurance, you must establish HMO. It also can't be an IPA.

Dear Sneekin
Have you looked at our prison system and VA. have you seen the millions in tax dollars wasted by public school boards and public housing for mismanagement even 12 million in one case in Houston that shut a district down. Taxpayers were never reimbursed by the wrongdoers.

So this isn't accountable.

If we did manage those resources effectively this CAN run as nonprofits that have to be held to account.

The key is answering to the people.

It can be a nonprofit business or LLC or whatever people choose locally as long as it represents the people paying in and participating to make sure it sustains and grows.

I would go with adding the Code of Ethics for govt service to Constitutional standards for these entities to follow.

Sneekin it can still be done through govt if people agree.

But as you pointed out, people do not agree on govt authority because we don't even view it the same way. You dont agree on mixing in beliefs with govt and neither do others agree on putting secular govt before their beliefs about social institutions and programs this can't be forced on them contrary to beliefs in free-market and charities that have freedom to counsel people spiritually as part of their services to reduce costs and make sure people aren't stuck in poverty or addiction.

We can microlending instead of welfare and forced taxation without representation. I don't believe in rewarding criminal behavior for running up costs while punishing law abiding citizrns for making more money where they are derived of liberty and income because other people committed crimes and cost taxpayer resources.

So I believe in funding and rewarding programs that work by giving the tax breaks or the credit for loans to people who chose to invest in more cost effective programs that break the cycle of crime and poverty.

A lot of these programs that work are faith based even if they are secular and can't be regulated or forced on people but work by free will. So it would be discriminating against people's beliefs and freedom to force them to pay for systems that punish law abiding independent efforts while rewarding dependence on govt that enables corruption and waste to go unchecked.

You can keep funding your own system of choice, but it's unfair to impose that on others. Just like the marriage laws, if you are going to allow gay marriage to be endorsed by states even if people don't agree, then why not open the door for others to follow their faith even if you don't agree.

Just let people invest freely and deduct from taxes.

BTW it's already legal for people to set up their own LLC, churches and schools as either business or nonprofit or both. So it's not a matter of laws since this is already a choice by law. It's a matter of will and consent if people agree to organize and do it that way.

Emily - I see once again you failed to answer a single question put to you.......

Have I looked at the waste? yes, seen millions spent because of hatemongers and religious nut jobs. Or people having to sue to prevent people like yourself from introducing a state/federal religion.

I don't have to fund my own school, as my kids went to PUBLIC school. It's your right to fund your children to go to whatever PRIVATE school, provided they can pass basic reading, writing, and math tests (among others). .

I didn't say that BS about mixing in beliefs and people not agreeing on government authority, that was a poster named EMILY, who doesn't listen to folk.

We can't do microlending, tried and failed. We have taxation, but it's WITH REPRESENTATION. No matter how much you fantasize that you have no representation, you are just deluding yourself. You elect officials to represent yourself in city, county, state and federal government, and they pass or not pass taxes.

Microlending - what happens if someone fails to get a job and pay it back? If it was for health care, do we leave them dying in the streets? You apparently do. If they are homeless, do they freeze to death? Your wishes, not mine. Do we let the little children and infants and school age children starve, along with their parents, if they can't pay back loans? That's what you advocate.

Welfare no longer is welfare. In 96 Clinton signed into law welfare reform - a cap of 5 years - period. GW Bush (Texan) failed to enforce it. Obama caught hell for enforcing it, but he did. If you are able to work (no disabilities, no infants), you work. That entitled my grandson, who was temporarily stranded out of state and homeless, to get his 36 dollars a month for three months........Not sure how to get this through your thick skull, but His paycheck paid for the bus rides (you pay for multiple transfers, so up to 10 dollars a day, plus bathroom supplies, and replacing things stolen from him in the shelter.

To create jobs, you have to have money. Those businesses with all the money, refuse to invest. Trickle down economics is what it's called - if failed under Reagan, Bush 1 and Bush 2. But here comes emily, waiving the flag with her "new" concept.

New term - faith based secular programs. Crack that dictionary, dear - secular = not pertaining to or connected with religion. Faith based = affiliated with, supported by, or based on a
religion or religious group.

Try and grasp this, dear, you are making up terms to make yourself seem intelligent and correct, yet you should know you are lying at this point.

Don't know how jobs are in your area, but we have 1000 people standing around for up to 100 day labor jobs in the spring, summer and fall.

Share with us, oh uneducated one, how we pay people to be dependent on government. I'd love to see your happy rear survive on 36 dollars a month for food, 100 dollars (or 200) for rent, utilities, clothing, etc. Are you sooooo uneducated as to think people WANT THIS? If so, at this point you need to get out in the real world. Or lets say you are married, and your husband becomes disabled. And say you have 2 kids. I really hope you can live on 120 in food stamps, and 700-800 for utilities, shelter, transportation, co-pays (like birth control), clothing, etc. You live in a fantasy level with your proposals. It's not like this hasn't happened. Apparently you aren't aware that in big cities, like NY, where the coroner has to go out daily in the winter (and multiple times weekly during the other seasons) to scrape up the bodies of dead people. Fool that oyu are, you can't comprehend that in quite a few states, you can't get food stamps, SSI or welfare unless you have a PERMANENT address. Homeless shelters are not normally considered a permanent address. You have all of these unfulfillable plans, first proposed by Reagan, Bush 1 & 2, and now, Paul Ryan. One has to hope that you now do't have a pre-existing condition. With Ryan's plan, which even Trump thought was extreme, will reduce Medicare to vouchers, and Medicaid to a small percentage of current funding streams, in a Block Grant, which means the monies don't even have to go to medical treatment of the poor.

I don't fund my system of choice. There are systems in place that I paid into my entire work career. Why, at retirement, should I have to switch to a voucher program that won't pay my medical bills to the extent the Medicare program I paid into was supposed to do. And I'm too young to qualify for Medicare for 5 more years.

You are crazy - medicare and social security is unfair? Amazing, as they passed with public approval. Welfare passed. SNAP passed. Section 8 passed (with months and months of being on waitlists). learn to tell the truth.

People work by free will. They don't get to pick their wages, contrary to your rants and babblings. People these days take a job, work, and continue to look for better jobs. I know people that have worked fast food for 30 years - it's all they could get. Not everyone has an IQ of 160, not everyone can afford college, not everyone presents as well as you do. You are fantasizing. Until we get the country under control, going in the same general direction, without you, telling lies and trying to make illegal changes, we aren't going to improve. Trickle down still doesn't work. Never did, but now it's worse.

Seriously Emily, WRITE THIS DOWN. No one BUT YOU is saying people can't follow their faith when it comes to marriage. First amendment right of any religious institution (we call them church, temple, mosque, etc). Those Imams, Rabbis, Priests, Monks, etc follow their faith.

States that don't have laws that say discrimination based on sexual preference are free to refuse any gay people. No photography, no cakes, no hall rentals, etc.

If you could read laws, and had a minimal grasp on how they are applied, you would realize that if state (or local/county/city) law states sexual preference is protected, then they cannot refuse gays the right to photography, cakes, hall rentals, etc. Equal access for all groups.

You've proposed repeated times to allow people to opt out because of their religion. What you refuse to accept, is that it violates the law. It also opens the door to refuse blacks, asians, hispanics, disabled, elderly, heterosexuals, etc and freely get away with it. It wouldn't apply just to those groups. You, Ms white Emily, could come to my store with your black husband, and I would be able to tell you you have to leave him out in the car, we don't allow his kind in. Or we could make your kids enter through the back door. Or we could tell your grandmother to get out, we don't like the way she looks, she moves to slow, etc.

BTW, Emily, you are clueless to LLC's. I gave you specifics on what's allowed and what's not, and much of what you've proposed is ILLEGAL. Yes, dear, Schools (public) are NOT and CANNOT be LLC. They are an entity of the state, foolish one. You're also mixing 501c3 and 501c4.....not everyone can set both of these up, that IS WRITTEN IN LAW. You cannot make your insurance company a 501c4 no matter how much you claim. Educate yourself - and read what people write - I gave you specifics on many of the situations that are disallowed, that you still claim are allowed.

It's not just a matter of will and consent and people organizing and doing things in a certain way. c3's have rules. c4's have rules. You can't just create an LLC without knowing what you can and cannot do. How foolish.

In regards to you freely investing in schools and deducting from taxes, I raise the BS flag. You people complain about schools, and then want to take more money from then. Charter schools should have all funding pulled, and put them back in private school status. You keep trying to blur the lines. We need clear delineation.

You are free to invest whatever you want. But you're still going to pay taxes like the rest of us. Otherwise, the country falls apart. We need a budget - you need one, I need one, and the country, responsible for the millions of people that reside here. You are taxed, you are represented. End of discussion.

I related my issues with the VA. It should be combined with Medicare, and be a single payer health insurance. I should be able to see my own doctors. I should be able to not be ripped off for medical supplies, and prescriptions. You obviously know nothing about the VA system. I deal with them several times a month.

So - go figure - Texas had a school that ripped off to the tune of 12 million (really a drop in the bucket) - fire the administrators. Cut their salaries in half. Raise the pay of the teachers. And keep the damn parents out of most of the decisions. Texas has repeatedly proven they lack intelligence when it comes to educating students. Teach abstinence only, and complain when the teen birth rate goes up. Teach creationism only, and complain when test scores drop.

Fortunately, your incompetence in Texas isn't yet indicative of the entire country. My cousin started a private school because there wasn't adequate funding for kids with learning disabilities. She was named woman of the year in her state several times for all of her efforts. She also paid her taxes, with a portion going to local public schools. She testified in front of congress, because there should have been no need for her school.

My daughter taught school, and now substitute teaches. My daughter ended up buying supplies for children because parents felt it wasnt their responsibility. Or were too poor. She spent up to half her salary at the start of the school year. She worked from 7:30 in the morning to 4:30 at night, went home, graded paper, and spent until 9 or 10 answering questions from students when they needed help. That's the majority of teachers. You give an example of Texas, where they have incompetents at every level in the public sector, and they are elected by the incompetents of Texas. Gohmert and former Government Perry come to mind, along with Senator Cruz. Extremists, and one's a whiny psycho who's probably mentally ill in real life.

 

[Sneekin]

So many letters! Now I see, I'm discussing with lawyers

That's an offensive statement, seeing how over 90 percent of sexual abuse occurs in heterosexual "traditional" families.....

So what? (c) Metallica. Children really have a lot of problems in traditional families - so, let's add them another problem from homosexual? And 90% - it's because a part of this families so large, but probability of sexual abuse in homosexual families much higher...

Wrong - the Latin word was in use LONG BEFORE the origination of Christianity - several millenia, I'm sure.

Latin word was "Mas". "Marriage" formed in English, inherited from Latin

Wow - you have so little education, and have told no truths.

I could to predict much of your responces, but trying to solve problem not from lawyer sight of view, but breaking stereotypes. There are a lot of problems in both situation - to allow heterosexual of marriage or to forbid. And some of thes problems we really don't able to comprehend, because it concerns a large society phenomenons. What if our salvation will lead to demographic catastrophe in 2nd or in 3rd generation? It could be good for us, but what do you say about our grandchildren?

Maybe, it's just because US didn't have an enormous demographic losses from external aggression during all XX century, like we are...

Really? What would those SSM problems be? Certainly not the same as the 90 percent of children being abused. Here's a thought - instead of making up your facts, back them up with actual facts.

Marriage - created thousands of years before Christianity, or even Judaism.
You and Emily are looking for the word MATRIMONY - a religious ceremony joining two people together. So have at it. Don't get married, just as for matrimony, give up all of your tax benefits, decision making, protections for spouse and children, inheritance, survivorship, etc. I really don't care. But Marriage is a SECULAR term here. Your church co-opted it, but we are talking CIVIL MARRIAGE. CIVIL MARRIAGE is between two people. PERIOD. Man/Man, Woman/Woman, or Man/Woman. Grasp that yet?

I am breaking your stereotypes. I'm almost 60. I've got friends that were raised by their mom and "Aunt". They were lesbians. The kids (gen 1) are 60ish, no problems. Well established, good incomes, etc. Their children - 40ish - same, no different problems. Their children (some 20ish) - no problems, out of college, working, good incomes. The few of them with children have not claimed any problems with their lesbian mom/grandmom/great grandmom etc. It's been checked. This has gone on for years. Get a Clue.

 

[Sneekin]

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.

???

Faun
It backs itself up!
Once you apply religious freedom to your INALIENABLE belief in your right to marry whoever you want,
Then you DON'T NEED to "justify" your beliefs because your free exercise of those beliefs is INALIENABLE.

Do you understand INALIENABLE Faun

If your rights and beliefs depend on courts or govt before you can have them, then they aren't INALIENABLE

Im saying you don't need to and never had to justify your beliefs in right to marry.

So if you are the one disparaging your own rights, and insisting they depend on govt, or insisting your beliefs depend on "justifying" them, why are you blaming me for that? I said a Muslim does NOT need to justify beliefs about pork, nor an atheist need to justify beliefs about God or crosses or lack of belief, and people who do or do not believe in gay marriage don't have to justify that either because both are entitled to their BELIEFS and these are inalienable.

Sorry you believe you have to depend on govt for your rights. I think they are natural and free exercise of religion, beliefs, will and choice covers your right to marry already. Nobody can stop anyone from setting up a ceremony and getting married unless you do it in such a way that imposes or forces other people to be responsible who aren't required to believe endorse or participate in your ceremony if they don't want to.
Just like any other cultural or religious tradition, these remain voluntary choice and can't be forced on people by law.

Things do not back themselves up because you say they do. You have to prove your claims and you can't. You made the fallacious claim that same-sex marriage is practiced under the freedom to exercise religion.

Prove it by quoting the relevant text from the Obergefell decision saying anything about same-sex marriage is a right falling under the freedom to exercise religion...

As far as your nonsense that I depend on the government for my rights ... It's not that I depend on them for my rights -- I, along with everyone else, depends on ths government to secure my rights. That's a major role of our government. That's why gays can now marry the person of their choice just as straight folks can.

Dear Faun
It's up to people to defend our own rights and freedoms by enforcing laws.
People in govt and people outside of govt are equally responsible.

If we violate rights of others, that's when we invite the same to be done to us.

But when we RESPECT rights of others, they naturally respond by respecting ours.

It is one thing to use the democratic process to defend against discrimination,
such as arguing against DOMA as being unconstitutional.

Had people listened to PEOPLE DIRECTLY challenging this law TO BEGIN WITH
as UNCONSTITUTIONAL then it wouldn't get passed and then have to get struck down after the fact.

So that's what I'm saying again here.

If we already know there are objections, if we resolve those up front,
then the people "can petition each other directly" and settle most of those issues ourselves.

We can then write our own laws based on that agreement, and not create
more battles to fight by NOT listening in the first place.

So I think I'm a step ahead of this whole process
and working towards people acting as govt more directly.

Emily, only Section 3 of DOMA was struck down in 2013 under Windsor (male/female).

Religious folks consider, gay marriage profaned marriage sacrament. Gay marriage - it's just a senseless imitation of one of main Church rituals. Does it mean, gay marriage is the same with marriage of Maria and Josef? Can you imagine the insult, you making to christians... In fact, it's an extremism...

Dear Sbiker
1. To some people yes it's totally unacceptable if not blasphemous and offensive and imposing on them and their beliefs so this either should remain private or not practiced at all
2. To some they may not agree, but still accept it, and only oppose as a public policy endorsed through govt. Like people who don't oppose but who accept and support Christianity but not to be endorsed through govt.
3. Some accept gay marriage and agree to have govt endorse it, and are either neutral either way, or who favor inclusion.
4. And some absolutely HAVE to have marriage equality Through Govt and cannot have marriage taken out for everyone in order to be equal. For some it's required or its not an equal right for all people.

So Sbiker given these beliefs, about 4 major leanings with variations of reasons and degrees.
How do you suggest states implement laws to treat all these beliefs equally?

Easy

If you believe same sex marriage is blasphemous......don't do it

If you love someone of the same sex......marry them

What is not fair about that?

rightwinger by keeping marriage out of govt,
yes, people are free to practice and don't have to answer to the public.

but if you are depending on licensing through govt,
that's where those terms should be as neutral as necessary

Jews and Muslims believe that eating pork is wrong.

Yet- pork slaughterhouses, and restaurants that serve pork are licensed by the government.

We do not stop licensing simply because some people's religious faith says something is wrong.

Let me put it another way.

I am an atheist- and I am happily married- I was civilly married. Why do you insist on doing away with an entire civil institution that I want- because some people of some faiths are opposed to gays having the same legal recognition as my wife and I have?

I heared, Jews don't eat only pork, stepping on ground. They have special pig farm, where pigs are living at steel grids above the ground - and their meat is acceptable...

Yes, some people don't eat pork - but they are people too! What is the reason to force them to eat pork only because someone, eating pork, want "to play in muslim too"?

There's no problem for gays to have any sexual relations they want. There's no any problems for them (especially, because they're "artistic" and "creative") to develop own, gay rituals for marriage and so on (I doubt, married gays really to plan live married all remained life - as tradition of marriage generally need ). Instead of it - they performing lawyer aggression against tradition forms of marriage. They no need to have own - they only want to destroy something, they don't have. That'a a main problem, as I see...

I am an atheist too (some church people hate me "for my cynicism"), but religion - is a phenomenon, we have to keep and learn, before saying "it's not a true, it's just a legend and obscurantism"... And close to it, we have to change tradition carefully because of mass psychology problems danger. How many drugs current people eating to correct problems of life? Does it correct price for our progress, or it's too much?

Wow - not true about the pork Jews dont eat pork because it has a split hoof, but does not chew the cud; it is unclean for you. You shall neither eat of their flesh nor touch their carcass. Straight from their scripture.

Not all gays are artistic and creative - I know plenty of blue color gay grunts that can't draw a straight line, or coordinate a pair of socks. There is no gay marriage, and no straight marriage. That was struck down in 2013 and 2015. All that remains is MARRIAGE. So sayeth the Supreme Court.

Can you tell me what gays want to destroy in Marriage? They get married at city hall, just like straights. They get married only in churches that allow gay marriage, just like straight people can only get married in churches that recognize straight marriage. Wrong again, sbiker.

Traditional marriage, prior to christianity is just what it is now - a contract between two people. Try and grasp how tradition changes. We don't decide how it changes - we don't vote on tradition. Christmas is December 25. I can't change tradition (vote on it, etc) and make it April.

Finally, Being gay or straight isn't a mental illness nor a psychological problem, no matter how often you ramble on and babble about it. Not in the DSM, and no competent Psychologist/Psychiatrist will say it is.

 

[Sneekin]

Religious folks consider, gay marriage profaned marriage sacrament. Gay marriage - it's just a senseless imitation of one of main Church rituals. Does it mean, gay marriage is the same with marriage of Maria and Josef? Can you imagine the insult, you making to christians... In fact, it's an extremism...

Dear Sbiker
1. To some people yes it's totally unacceptable if not blasphemous and offensive and imposing on them and their beliefs so this either should remain private or not practiced at all
2. To some they may not agree, but still accept it, and only oppose as a public policy endorsed through govt. Like people who don't oppose but who accept and support Christianity but not to be endorsed through govt.
3. Some accept gay marriage and agree to have govt endorse it, and are either neutral either way, or who favor inclusion.
4. And some absolutely HAVE to have marriage equality Through Govt and cannot have marriage taken out for everyone in order to be equal. For some it's required or its not an equal right for all people.

So Sbiker given these beliefs, about 4 major leanings with variations of reasons and degrees.
How do you suggest states implement laws to treat all these beliefs equally?

Easy

If you believe same sex marriage is blasphemous......don't do it

If you love someone of the same sex......marry them

What is not fair about that?

rightwinger by keeping marriage out of govt,
yes, people are free to practice and don't have to answer to the public.

but if you are depending on licensing through govt,
that's where those terms should be as neutral as necessary

Jews and Muslims believe that eating pork is wrong.

Yet- pork slaughterhouses, and restaurants that serve pork are licensed by the government.

We do not stop licensing simply because some people's religious faith says something is wrong.

Let me put it another way.

I am an atheist- and I am happily married- I was civilly married. Why do you insist on doing away with an entire civil institution that I want- because some people of some faiths are opposed to gays having the same legal recognition as my wife and I have?

Hi Syriusly
for the analogy about pork and Muslims,
it's more like this:

1. Let's take something like the Jewish traditions of Kosher foods being embedded in business
and public policies. And some have argued this is violating separation of church and state,
but there are some practices in place, and people have accepted and tolerated them.

2. Now let's say a MUSLIM group says we want the same recognition as the JEWISH who
have their practices recognized in public policy.

So the court says sure, if Jewish laws are practiced so should Muslim laws be practiced.

And there are objections:
A. one group that favors Judeo-Christian beliefs but not Muslim rejects the new reforms.
B. one group says BOTH sets of rules should have be en removed from policy and kept private choice
if businesses want to follow them or not. but none should be forced or ENDORSED BY GOVT to begin with.
C. Muslims are yelling but if Jewish traditions get to be practiced, that's discrimination
if you don't let ours be practiced, too.

So again, the two choices are to remove all of them,
keep all of them as equal choices, or agree how to write laws
where both could be practiced by free choice without govt ENDORSING any one set of beliefs.

How it's been handled in the past (yes, these things have come up before) - Christmas is a good example - it's a secular holiday as well as a religious holiday - the ONLY reason it's a federal holiday. If there was a shellfish ban (originally Jewish, for example), and entrenched for the last 250 years, it would probably stay as is. But apparently you don't know any Muslims - they wouldn't push this onto everyone else (nor would Jews) in fact. In many cities, Jews and Muslims have banded together to defend each other's Mosques and Synagogues from Christian persecution. Your list isn't valid. They simply wouldn't do it. However, if you are talking about something as silly as say a hot dog, most people are proud to offer Kosher already. If you would have read up on Halal versus Kosher, observed the differences, and checked the rules, you would have seen it's not that big of a deal. Quite a bit of similarities in dietary restrictions (Halal being slightly more lenient). Kosher has a more strict religious aspect (yet minimal) than halal.

Other than food, they have the same rights as every american - and the food is religiously imposed.

In other words, Muslims and Jews would not let it progress to your options 2 and 3. Try and get out more, and meet jews and muslims. I'm friends with the most left wing Rabbi (or person) I've ever met. Burned his draft card, marched, you name it. Best friends with the local Imam. Best friends with most christians, except those that hate Muslims and Jews). He does pity them and tolerate them, however. You're grasping at straws, and failing miserably.

 

[Syriusly]

Religious folks consider, gay marriage profaned marriage sacrament. Gay marriage - it's just a senseless imitation of one of main Church rituals. Does it mean, gay marriage is the same with marriage of Maria and Josef? Can you imagine the insult, you making to christians... In fact, it's an extremism...

Dear Sbiker
1. To some people yes it's totally unacceptable if not blasphemous and offensive and imposing on them and their beliefs so this either should remain private or not practiced at all
2. To some they may not agree, but still accept it, and only oppose as a public policy endorsed through govt. Like people who don't oppose but who accept and support Christianity but not to be endorsed through govt.
3. Some accept gay marriage and agree to have govt endorse it, and are either neutral either way, or who favor inclusion.
4. And some absolutely HAVE to have marriage equality Through Govt and cannot have marriage taken out for everyone in order to be equal. For some it's required or its not an equal right for all people.

So Sbiker given these beliefs, about 4 major leanings with variations of reasons and degrees.
How do you suggest states implement laws to treat all these beliefs equally?

Easy

If you believe same sex marriage is blasphemous......don't do it

If you love someone of the same sex......marry them

What is not fair about that?

rightwinger by keeping marriage out of govt,
yes, people are free to practice and don't have to answer to the public.

but if you are depending on licensing through govt,
that's where those terms should be as neutral as necessary

Jews and Muslims believe that eating pork is wrong.

Yet- pork slaughterhouses, and restaurants that serve pork are licensed by the government.

We do not stop licensing simply because some people's religious faith says something is wrong.

Let me put it another way.

I am an atheist- and I am happily married- I was civilly married. Why do you insist on doing away with an entire civil institution that I want- because some people of some faiths are opposed to gays having the same legal recognition as my wife and I have?

Dear Syriusly it's not doing away with it. It's giving people the *choice* of either opening up the sake process for all people, or of changing it to just civil unions for all people and stick to just the secular contracts and remove the social attachments. People can CHOOSE to have marriage in addition, but there is no reason for govt to require a particular kind of social relationship in order to get a license and benefits for a civil partnership that is secular only.

At least give people that choice of how much to put into govt laws and language and how much to leave private. Either all people of a state agree, or they privatize the parts they don't agree to open up to all peopleas the policy thats going to be public..

Emily- nothing prevents a state from ending all civil marriage. States are not required to have legal marriage- only that if they do have legal marriage they must provide it equally to all.

If you want your state to end legal marriage and replace it with civil unions then of course you are free to pursue that.

I just want to point out that the vast majority of married people want to be legally married- not to be 'civilly united"- what you propose would not bring about consensus- but again someone imposing their decision on others- for example my legal marriage would end- and either be- or not be- replaced by something else i do not want.

I am quite happy with the state of marriage as it is with regards to access to marriage. Now if we can just get everyone- straight and gay- to treat marriage with more respect- as a life long commitment- rather than serial monogamy- that would be worthwhile.