Faun
Diamond Member
- Nov 14, 2011
- 126,711
- 120,765
- 3,635
You never answered my question -- do you believe Churches should do away with marriages?
Gay marriage is not a constitutional right
- Thread starter IndependantAce
- Start date
Emily, it's been pointed out to you repeatedly - There is no gay marriage. There is no way to outlaw gay marriage. And no, you can't do it by consensus. You have absolutely NO CLUE how laws work.
FIrst of all, it takes a majority (simple majority or more) to pass or change a law. It doesn't require the consensus of all the people - that is simply laughable. In fact, you are wrong on applicability - the jurisdiction is the entire US, and representation are ALL US CITIZENS.
Abortion probably won't, but could be outlawed. Again, it doesn't require the consent of the people affected by the law, it doesn't require a consensus, and it doesn't required everyone to agree to anything. WRONG AGAIN. When another abortion case makes it to the SCOTUS, the court can rule and restrict it, no matter what you said. It can also be banned by constitutional amendment - you need to read up on that process. That would probably take at least 10 years, and more than likely wouldn't have enough votes to pass. Sorry, this post of yours was wrong as well.
Won't be addressed - this is so off topic it's not even funny. This is about marriage, you are babbling about the ACA.
Marriage licenses are just about CIVIL contracts.
Muslims can marry whoever they want in many other countries, however. What you are saying is the same as saying Catholics can only marry opposite sex Catholics in the Country of Vatican City. Any country that allows SSM allows the marriage between LGBT Muslims.Syriusly, that's not even true any more. There are lots of gay Muslims, including Gay Imams - right here in the US of A - and gay Muslims get married either civilly or by an Imam.
First gay marriage was in Neitherlands, in 2001. Tell me about "no problems" from this marriages fifty years after
First gay marriage was in the Netherlands in 2001. First gay marriage in the United States was in 2004.
Tell me what problems has this caused in the last 11-15 years.
But don't worry- if you want 'traditional marriage' to be forced on everyone- the Muslim world awaits you.
Back story: Imam Daayiee Abdullah is the first America’s openly gay Muslim, and he performs same-sex marriages for gay Muslims. (published 2013)
I think you'll make his head explode though.
I was referring to the Muslim countries of the world. I am not aware of a single country where Islam is the official religion that allows 'gay marriage'.
Muslims, straight or gay, can marry who they choose in the United States.
Not really- and while I generally agree with your points, please don't say what I am saying- I do say what I am saying
I was responding to the discussion on societies and gay marriage.
SSM marriage is now recognized in most Western countries- in most countries that we would consider the 'First world', the countries with the most religious freedom, with the highest standard of learning.
The countries that have moved to make SSM illegal- or keep it illegal- are among the most corrupt, repressive countries in the world- the ones with the least religious freedom and low standards of living.
Yet there are Americans who think that those countries are the ones America should emulate.
Abortion has been outlawed before- the only reason it is not banned in many states is because of the Supreme Court.
Just as mixed race marriages were outlawed and same gender marriages were outlawed.
All with the support of the majority.
Our system does not rely upon consensus for anything- and for good reason. While consensus is a grand idea- outside of relatively small groups it is virtually impossible to attain. There will always be those who oppose something or anything. There will always be contrarians. You know- the guys in every election who writes the 'con' arguments for even initiatives that are wildly popular with most voters.
We have a legislative process to make laws- that does not require a consensus- but a majority.
We have a judicial process to decide on the constitutionality of the laws- and that has nothing do with majority or consensus.
If you can get everyone to agree to anything let me know.
I don't agree to change the name of my marriage. I don't agree to change our form of civil marriage. I like our marriage laws. I like that same gender couples can marry each other legally just as my wife and I are legally married.
If you can get everyone to agree with me- well then that works for me.
rightwinger
Award Winning USMB Paid Messageboard Poster
- Aug 4, 2009
- 308,358
- 263,333
- 3,615
That's all the government does....enforce the CIVIL aspects of a marriage license
If you agreed to raise your children Catholic (my father did) the government does not enforce it
If you reported to your minister that you are a virgin, the government does not enforce it if you are not
rightwinger
Award Winning USMB Paid Messageboard Poster
- Aug 4, 2009
- 308,358
- 263,333
- 3,615
Dear Emily
You are confusing personal Constitutional rights with business regulation
A person has a 14th amendment right to equal protection under the laws. If I am a married person, I am a married person in every state. Loving vs Virginia settled that
A business is obligated to follow the rules in the municipality in which they operate. Even town by town
emilynghiem
Constitutionalist / Universalist
Dear Syriusly That's right.
And others are saying that also.
That nobody has the right to abuse govt to change
their definition of marriage either!
AGREED!
rightwinger
Award Winning USMB Paid Messageboard Poster
- Aug 4, 2009
- 308,358
- 263,333
- 3,615
The ones who were abusing government were those insisting that the government enforce their hatred
.
Last edited:
emilynghiem
Constitutionalist / Universalist
Dear Sneekin Faun rightwinger Syriusly
Thank you SO MUCH for all your intelligent responses
articulating exactly what is going on with this law and process.
I have be en out sick, and just cheating and replying by cell phone.
but when I have time I will go back, thank or info all your points
that are informative and appreciated, and outline all your points.
This is EXACTLY what should have been addressed in reforming laws.
BEFORE DOMA was written and passed, it should have already resolved all these things.
This would be a full time job to revise laws including ACA which at this point
has at least two separate versions. BOTH can be offered as equal tracks
and let TAXPAYERS decide which to enroll and pay into.
With marriage and civil unions, I think we could have a consensus at each state level
and possibly nationally instead of separating.
If only some fringe groups opt out due to religious beliefs, I think that is possible
also. I certainly do not believe in forcing anyone's marriage through the state who
wants to keep theirs private. But if people insist on having THEIR marriage through
the state, why shouldn't they be able to have that and not force everyone to do it that way?
I think this is similar to the issue over GUN regulations,
whether right to bear arms is an unrestricted right, or
how much does govt get involved in the regulations?
Because right to bear arms is written as an Amendment into the Constitution
as one of its founding principles, the right to marriage would also have to
be written as an Amendment to have the same weight.
So THAT'S why it seems so imbalanced to others looking at this
from the other perspective:
1. why do liberals insist on REMOVING a right or trying to regulate
it away if right to bear arms is WRITTEN into the Bill of Rights.
Why INSIST on the definition of "people" as "militia only"
2. Then COMPLAIN when people define marriage as "one man one woman only"
if it isn't govt's job to dictate that either!
There is no Amendment to the Constitution that state the right to marry
as a right that cannot be disparaged by the other rights by enumeration.
The right of states and persons is Amendment 10 so that can be used
to defend the BELIEFS in right to marriage, but the same standard
should also apply to BELIEFS in right to bear arms.
Faun does NOT get how one issue has anything to do with others.
But it is the whole CONTEXT of how we approach laws and govt
that is affecting how we interpret and WRITE laws.
The left and right don't even see the Second Amendment the same way
and that's a WRITTEN law.
Why not get THAT straight, and then maybe we can write an Amendment
to deal with right to marriage right to health care and other political beliefs.
If we haven't solved the issue of why people interpret the ability of govt
to regulate arms, when there IS a written Amendment on that, then
similar conflicts are happening with the ability of govt to regulate marriage.
there is something DIFFERENT in the basic core beliefs about govt
and the relation between people and authority of law that is causing
these "cross communications" preventing conflicts from getting resolved.
Lastly, the progressives have been pushing for a Peace
department that focuses on diplomatic solutions instead of war.
I have proposed to expand the Justice dept to the Dept of Justice and Peace
to work on MEDIATION and conflict resolution as a public service.
Since nobody wants other people to regulate or take away
either their right to marriage or right to bear arms, and we
don't interpret laws or govt the same way, I say this calls
for MEDIATION to work this out.
So if anything you have convinced me we need mediation
and the govt ought to incorporate that assistance in the process
of judicial rulings, legislative reforms, and crafting executive orders
where any objections or conflicts can be resolved to prevent from
passing and rejecting, passing and rejecting, ruling and appealing
over and over because there were flaws or issues left unaddressed.
Thank you!
Thank you SO MUCH for all your intelligent responses
articulating exactly what is going on with this law and process.
I have be en out sick, and just cheating and replying by cell phone.
but when I have time I will go back, thank or info all your points
that are informative and appreciated, and outline all your points.
This is EXACTLY what should have been addressed in reforming laws.
BEFORE DOMA was written and passed, it should have already resolved all these things.
This would be a full time job to revise laws including ACA which at this point
has at least two separate versions. BOTH can be offered as equal tracks
and let TAXPAYERS decide which to enroll and pay into.
With marriage and civil unions, I think we could have a consensus at each state level
and possibly nationally instead of separating.
If only some fringe groups opt out due to religious beliefs, I think that is possible
also. I certainly do not believe in forcing anyone's marriage through the state who
wants to keep theirs private. But if people insist on having THEIR marriage through
the state, why shouldn't they be able to have that and not force everyone to do it that way?
I think this is similar to the issue over GUN regulations,
whether right to bear arms is an unrestricted right, or
how much does govt get involved in the regulations?
Because right to bear arms is written as an Amendment into the Constitution
as one of its founding principles, the right to marriage would also have to
be written as an Amendment to have the same weight.
So THAT'S why it seems so imbalanced to others looking at this
from the other perspective:
1. why do liberals insist on REMOVING a right or trying to regulate
it away if right to bear arms is WRITTEN into the Bill of Rights.
Why INSIST on the definition of "people" as "militia only"
2. Then COMPLAIN when people define marriage as "one man one woman only"
if it isn't govt's job to dictate that either!
There is no Amendment to the Constitution that state the right to marry
as a right that cannot be disparaged by the other rights by enumeration.
The right of states and persons is Amendment 10 so that can be used
to defend the BELIEFS in right to marriage, but the same standard
should also apply to BELIEFS in right to bear arms.
Faun does NOT get how one issue has anything to do with others.
But it is the whole CONTEXT of how we approach laws and govt
that is affecting how we interpret and WRITE laws.
The left and right don't even see the Second Amendment the same way
and that's a WRITTEN law.
Why not get THAT straight, and then maybe we can write an Amendment
to deal with right to marriage right to health care and other political beliefs.
If we haven't solved the issue of why people interpret the ability of govt
to regulate arms, when there IS a written Amendment on that, then
similar conflicts are happening with the ability of govt to regulate marriage.
there is something DIFFERENT in the basic core beliefs about govt
and the relation between people and authority of law that is causing
these "cross communications" preventing conflicts from getting resolved.
Lastly, the progressives have been pushing for a Peace
department that focuses on diplomatic solutions instead of war.
I have proposed to expand the Justice dept to the Dept of Justice and Peace
to work on MEDIATION and conflict resolution as a public service.
Since nobody wants other people to regulate or take away
either their right to marriage or right to bear arms, and we
don't interpret laws or govt the same way, I say this calls
for MEDIATION to work this out.
So if anything you have convinced me we need mediation
and the govt ought to incorporate that assistance in the process
of judicial rulings, legislative reforms, and crafting executive orders
where any objections or conflicts can be resolved to prevent from
passing and rejecting, passing and rejecting, ruling and appealing
over and over because there were flaws or issues left unaddressed.
Thank you!
Nobody can force anyone to agree on a definition of marriage. You can believe that marriage is the coming together of 3 women, two men and a yak- and the government cannot make you believe otherwise.
It is not an abuse of government to provide equal protection for regulations.
It is not an abuse of government to regulate slaughter houses, even though some Americans don't believe animals should be slaughtered.
It is not an abuse of government to license the marriages of Americans- even if they are mixed race or same gender.
Frankly I don't know what you think you are in agreement with me on. As I said- if you want complete agreement by everybody on marriage- all you have to do is get everyone to agree with me. Because I have no intention on agreeing on something else.
Frankly Emily I prefer short succinct answers from you- I can almost follow what point you are trying to make.
Your long responses- like this- go off on all sorts of tangents that I consider to be irrelevant and I don't bother to read.
No one has changed the definition of marriage. Your people in Texas wanted to violate the 14th amendment, and illegally have a law preventing two people from getting married, which is what the definition of civil marriage is. It was appealed through the court system, Texas fighting, all the way to the SCOTUS, where they (as other courts did as well) invalidated the phrase between "a man and a woman". If you bothered reading your own laws regarding marriage, you would realize that they themselves didn't change. The state DOMA had 5 words invalidated. Do you understand? Do you grasp that this only affected CIVIL marriage? Your church wedding and the weddings performed for your conservative friends were not impacted in the least. The state did not touch a single word of your church's rules. Try again.
Wait - I re-read your blather - you are claiming someone changed YOUR definition of marriage. That my dear, is impossible, as your definition is only your opinion. If the state of Texas adopted a state religion, abused government and changed the definition of marriage within the state, it certainly didn't make the news. None of my family down there was aware of these changes - perhaps you could reference what your state religion is? Could you tell us what your state directed to the religions within the state regarding marriage? I know some attorneys down there (I'm sure you do as well) that would be more than willing to file suit against the state for violations of our first amendment right of freedom of religion.
Last edited:
You will note, this is not a 2nd amendment conversation, Emily. But as the SCOTUS (Scalia, even) points out, no right is absolute. Your 2nd amendment right does not allow you to have nuclear weapons, rocket launchers, most bombs, heavy artillery, etc. No liberal is trying to take your rights away. While you want the mentally ill to be weaponized (quite the outbreak of shootings in Texas from the mentally ill crowd), we want them to go through a background check to see if they psychologically are able to carry without harming themselves or others. We don't need another Texas mom shooting her small children.
You propose to change the DOJ to something else? You do realize that the DOJ is a cabinet position, established in Article II, Section 2, of the Constitution. Do you know the requirements, even, to add to or remove from Cabinet positions established by the constitution?
You claim people are trying to take away their right to marry. The only ones that do are right wing conservative nut jobs. If there are others, PLEASE LIST THEM.
Emily, you do realize that the ACA was originally written in the mid 1990's by the conservative think tank (Heritage group), because Hillary Clinton, as first lady, was developing a health care system on it's own. Her's didn't get implemented, and it was shelved until Romney dusted it off, tweaked and implemented it. It was constitutional. Obama took the republican plan, gave it to the mixed Congress, and had them develop it out nationwide. It was done. It passed. It went to the SCOTUS. It was deemed constitutional, mandates and all. Why you think you can now just make changes to a law at your own whim, without going through lawmakers is pretty laughable. Taxpayers already can decide - they can pay cash for insurance, they can go through the exchanges, or, depending on their job, opt to keep their work insurance -so you are wrong on this point as well.
We still aren't going to have civil unions AND marriages, with SSM going under one name, and marriage other another. Nor, marriage by a JP/Judge/non-religious being called a civil union, and church being called marriage. That's not the legal definition, as set forth in law. Again, Marriage is a civil contract between 2 people. Your church, you, and I and everyone here do not have the power to change that. You keep claiming "the people" or "the states" can define marriage as between one man and one woman. You can't - we have that silly Fourteenth Amendment, that gets in your way. It established due process and equal rights for ALL, not SOME. Understand? To answer your question a 10th or 20th time, NO, a state does NOT have the right to change it.
We all recognize (apparently excluding you) that both the 2nd and 14th amendments are both Laws. You claim liberals don't, but that's not true. We tell you the same thing the SCOTUS said. Both are rights, and rights are not absolute. If you are a felon, or (in most states) mentally ill and locked away, NO GUNS FOR YOU. That's the second amendment. The 14th amendment says 2 people can get married. It's not absolute. You can't marry your father, son, or sister. Got it?
While I believe in the right to bear arms, I know it's not absolute, and I know it's open for interpretation. If you don't comprehend the Militia argument, it's time for you to go back to Junior High, when most people are first exposed to the concept.
The Government does have the rights to regulate arms. Call your local FBI office, and tell them you have 300 pounds of C4 in your garage, and see how fast you are arrested. Tell them you can have it because of your second amendment rights.
Department of Peace? From 2001? Bit of a stretch, and completely off topic.
rightwinger
Award Winning USMB Paid Messageboard Poster
- Aug 4, 2009
- 308,358
- 263,333
- 3,615
12icer
Gold Member
- Nov 19, 2015
- 2,583
- 453
- 170
The individual right to keep and bear arms has already been established MANY TIMES, and MANY WAYS. It is an INDIVIDUAL RIGHT. THE CONSTITUTION of the UNITED STATES does not give rights to anyone, it defines the power the US government has to regulate them, and it does not define any finite group of THE PEOPLE who hold those rights. If you can find a finite group in there other than WE THE PEOPLE of the UNITED STATES. Produce it so we may all bask in the knowledge.
Faun
Diamond Member
- Nov 14, 2011
- 126,711
- 120,765
- 3,635
You sound thoroughly confused.
In your first sentence, you point out the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution gives people the right to bear arms.
In your second sentence, you claim the Constitution doesn't give us rights.
So leave these posts, if it's too challenging for you. I'm simply answering every question she asks, or refuting literaelly every statement she makes. I back it up with fact or cases when possible. I see you just whine and complain it's too hard. Why don't you get a room - by yourself?
Similar threads
New Topics
-
-
Is Georgia Crazy Enough To Make The Same Mistake Virginia Made?- Started by mudwhistle
- Replies: 2
-
Notes: Key Events Involving Islamist-Hitler-salutes Myron Gaines (Amrou Fudl) & Carrie Prejean Boller
- Started by Thethingsz
- Replies: 0
-
The Democrats would sell their own mothers if it meant they gained votes- Started by CrazyTrader55
- Replies: 10
-
Trump insults and alienates our allies and then expects their help!- Started by Astrostar
- Replies: 10
