Gay marriage is not a constitutional right

[Sbiker]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dear Faun if the Democratic platform seeks to BAN reparative therapy but DEFEND the free choice of abortion and gender change procedures for minors; while the Republican platform seeks to DEFEND the free choice of reparative therapy and BAN abortion and gender surgery for minors,
then we ARE dealing with two polar opposite political BELIEFS.

collectively these can be considered Political Religions:
one in promoting social and general welfare through govt as its major focus and rule
AND
one in promoted LIMITED federal govt where national defense is its unique role (and most other social functions can or should be done outside so it doesn't bog down govt in bureaucratic waste interfering with govt duties)

So YES Faun it WOULD or SHOULD BE UNCONSTITITIONAL for one group to IMPOSE or ESTABLISH its BELIEFS as a national religion for ALL the public to be COMPELLED to pay taxes under and comply with!

But guess what, that's what Obama did in enforcing ACA mandates and declaring
the belief in "health care as right" as the "law of the land"
offending people who BELIEVE in putting the Constitution first as the law of the land,
and requiring state ratified AMENDMENTS before granting any such authority to federal govt.

(The federal exchanges and mandated insurance in essence constitute a FAITH BASED system that people either BELIEVE in or DON'T. these aren't proven or disproven, so both positions for or against this system are FAITH BASED. and yet our govt REQUIRES participation and funding, and this isn't a choice, even though it is AGAINST people's beliefs and faith in limited govt and free market health care!)

so yes, we ARE dealing with political beliefs and religions if you consider the whole set as one system,
and we ARE dealing with political leaders and lobbies seeking to IMPOSE THESE AS LAW
whether "right to life"
or "right to health care"
FOR THE WHOLE NATION

(AND YES I DO BELIEVE THAT SHOULD BE BARRED AS UNCONSTITUTIONAL!!!)

You are free to believe anything you like; but fortunately for the rest of us, your beliefs, being counter to how laws are actually enforced, bear no resemblance to reality. There is only one law for everyone. We don't enforce laws differently based on personal beliefs but on constitutionality.

by what you posed Faun I would agree
if that if the Republicans don't agree to a law because they say it's unconstitutional because it violates
their beliefs, then it IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL and that law should NOT be enforced but changed.
if the Democrats don't agree to a law because they argue it's unconstitutional because it violates
their beliefs, same thing, it should be struck down or changed until both sides AGREE it is constitutional!

the problem Faun is we have DEMOCRATS insisting ACA and health care laws are constitutional
because THEY BELIEVE govt should be the central default for managing health care "as a right"
while REPUBLICANS insist it ISN'T constitutional and needs to be revised.

So I agree with you, since there is only one law, then if people don't agree because of their beliefs,
that law CANNOT be enforced as "law for all people"

We SHOULD use that standard of satisfying ALL parties and people's beliefs
before claiming to establish a law that touches on those beliefs.

Then we WOULDN'T have one group saying it's the law
and the other saying it violates law. We've got that going on now
because we don't finish the process of resolving conflicts to AGREE on one law!

Holyfuckingshit!

No, Emily, laws are not unconstitutional because either party believes they are. Even worse for your nonsense, laws are not deemed constitutional because both parties agree to that.

What country do you live in that you believe that nonsense.

At the state and federal level, both parties pass laws. Sometimes in agreement, sometimes not. Constitutionality of laws passed is not even in question. ALL laws are considered constitutional when passed and remain so until challenged within the judicial branch of our government. If a law is determined to be unconstitutional, that judgement is rendered by the presiding judge(s), not the political parties, as you asininely believe.

I believe Sneekin claims to be an attorney. He can correct me if I'm mistaken.

This post of yours fully explains why you're so wrong in your arguments and why you have failed miserably to convince anyone to accept your position -- you have no ******* clue what you're spouting. Like Sbiker's idiocy about why some Jews don't eat pork, I don't even know where you come up with this shit.

Wait a second I'm not afraid of be an idiot, but where did I discussed WHY some Jews don't eat pork? Maybe almost of your "facts" to prove your position are "frying" too?

 

[Sbiker]

[Q
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...=

How are gays 'destroying' anything by spending years trying to partcipate in marriage?

My marriage was not destroyed because Emily and Trisha can now legally marry- was yours?

Idyllic picture... Let's continue to paint it.

Today Emily and Trisha perform legal marriage - well, let them to live happy.

Tomorrow they want children. Any parentless children - ok, it's good, let them to have.

Day after - they don't want children with unknown genetics. They want one of YOUR children. Why not - it's just another step to keep their rights.

Day after - they have a lobby to adopt law for obligatory homosexual practice. You dont' want it? "How do you know, you don't want, it's just a stereotype... Prove, you don't have stereotypes, make a homo-sex regularily"! Offcorse, it's for chilldren too...

Today Jim and Sally are legally married.
Tomorrow they want children- but Jim is infertile so they use a sperm donor- ok, it's good, let them.
Day after- they don't want children with unknown genetics- Jim and Sally want one of your children. Why not- is just another step to keep their rights.
Day after- they have a lobby to adopt a law prohibiting homosexual practice- oh wait- Jim and Sally did that years ago, until the courts overturned Jim and Sally telling Americans what kind of sex we are allowed to have.

Moral: Allowing Jim and Sally to marry will mean they are coming to take your children away.

Ok, it's not good too, but it's very strange position. "We have a problem here - let's add here to another one". Problems must be solved, not to be hoarded. We have problems in tradition families - let's struggle for psychologist help, for control for them! It's more important... vital important for a lot of children, than a wishes of some gays - because this wishes are not needs of first like, but just a type of decoration of existing lifestyle...

 

[Sbiker]

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

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...

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

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.

You asked

Really? What would those SSM problems be?

and answered

Marriage - created thousands of years before Christianity, or even Judaism.

And if you say, there were a lot of societies, allowing gay marriage - it will be true. So - which of this societies are living NOW? If you don't believe in religion and want scientific approach... I would believe, SSM is progressive, useful and right - show me not a loser's example of it!

There are lots of societies allowing same sex marriage now.

Most of the western world as a matter of fact.

But hey- you are in luck- the Islamic world does not allow same sex marriage- but do allow polygamy(which is as ancient as marriage is).

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.

Oh, no problems, Muslim fastfood - shaurma - is really more tasty than burgers

Your propaganda in US now trying to mix Islam and Islamism - but really it's very different things, it could become an evil joke, if it will be continued...

p.s. 11-15 years is too few for world processes... I'm watching TV news - in 80th US used a terrible weapon against USSR - a freedom of info and opinion. USSR absorbs it as idea fully (instead of other states) - and fell. Now, after 30 years you have RT - and all your media screamed about "ideological diversion and so on" because now RT much close to truth than others ALL thing we invented and advanced - are returned to us after some decades...

 

[Sbiker]

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...

This is one of the dumbest things I ever read here. Sorry, it just is.

<smh>

Not to mention, completely untrue. Sbiker, perhaps you could tell us what Rabbi told you that story? Did he also sell you a bridge to Brooklyn, as well?

No, he just sold me another bridge much more closer to me - I'm waiting to visit it )

 

[Sneekin]

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.

You asked

Really? What would those SSM problems be?

and answered

Marriage - created thousands of years before Christianity, or even Judaism.

And if you say, there were a lot of societies, allowing gay marriage - it will be true. So - which of this societies are living NOW? If you don't believe in religion and want scientific approach... I would believe, SSM is progressive, useful and right - show me not a loser's example of it!

There are lots of societies allowing same sex marriage now.

Most of the western world as a matter of fact.

But hey- you are in luck- the Islamic world does not allow same sex marriage- but do allow polygamy(which is as ancient as marriage is).

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.

Oh, no problems, Muslim fastfood - shaurma - is really more tasty than burgers

Your propaganda in US now trying to mix Islam and Islamism - but really it's very different things, it could become an evil joke, if it will be continued...

p.s. 11-15 years is too few for world processes... I'm watching TV news - in 80th US used a terrible weapon against USSR - a freedom of info and opinion. USSR absorbs it as idea fully (instead of other states) - and fell. Now, after 30 years you have RT - and all your media screamed about "ideological diversion and so on" because now RT much close to truth than others ALL thing we invented and advanced - are returned to us after some decades...

Wrong - schawarma is a Turkish (Islam is their main religion) food, not a Muslim food. Many Muslims don't eat it. It's made the same as gyro meat that the Greeks use (Greece was invaded by the Turks) - just different compositions. It's roasted up to a day - not fast food at all. It's the national food of Turkey, not Muslims. The fact is, the meats used must be Halal. Not all shawarma is Halal. Loosely translated, it means meat roasted on a spit. If you are that concerned, realize that commercial gyros, shawarma and Döner are normally Halal.

Want to share with us how this has anything to do with civil Marriage? Planning on marrying a large piece of dark roasted meat?

11-15 years? Try thousands of years. Even recently, I've given you examples dating back to the 60's, that I personally remember. Thousands of years ago, it didn't destroy the Roman Empire - quite the opposite.

Islam v Islamism? How racist of you. Do they all look alike, from Africa to Greece to the Middle East? Not one terrorist in the group of all the Muslims I've worked with - and they worked for the DoD, before and after 9/11. You seem to be confused. There are also gay Muslims. Why are you so full of hate, that you feel such a need to lie? Should I make the same comparisons, and claim that all Christians are psychopathic, snake handling, tongue speaking hate mongers that go around tying gays to fences and torturing and killing them? After all, that's what some Fundamentalists do - so I guess the world should make the same generalities that you make. On a factual note, there are more Christian Terrorists than there are Muslim Terrorists, both within the US, and internationally.

 

[Sbiker]

You asked
and answered

And if you say, there were a lot of societies, allowing gay marriage - it will be true. So - which of this societies are living NOW? If you don't believe in religion and want scientific approach... I would believe, SSM is progressive, useful and right - show me not a loser's example of it!

There are lots of societies allowing same sex marriage now.

Most of the western world as a matter of fact.

But hey- you are in luck- the Islamic world does not allow same sex marriage- but do allow polygamy(which is as ancient as marriage is).

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.

Oh, no problems, Muslim fastfood - shaurma - is really more tasty than burgers

Your propaganda in US now trying to mix Islam and Islamism - but really it's very different things, it could become an evil joke, if it will be continued...

p.s. 11-15 years is too few for world processes... I'm watching TV news - in 80th US used a terrible weapon against USSR - a freedom of info and opinion. USSR absorbs it as idea fully (instead of other states) - and fell. Now, after 30 years you have RT - and all your media screamed about "ideological diversion and so on" because now RT much close to truth than others ALL thing we invented and advanced - are returned to us after some decades...

Wrong - schawarma is a Turkish (Islam is their main religion) food, not a Muslim food. Many Muslims don't eat it. It's made the same as gyro meat that the Greeks use (Greece was invaded by the Turks) - just different compositions. It's roasted up to a day - not fast food at all. It's the national food of Turkey, not Muslims. The fact is, the meats used must be Halal. Not all shawarma is Halal. Loosely translated, it means meat roasted on a spit. If you are that concerned, realize that commercial gyros, shawarma and Döner are normally Halal.

Want to share with us how this has anything to do with civil Marriage? Planning on marrying a large piece of dark roasted meat?

11-15 years? Try thousands of years. Even recently, I've given you examples dating back to the 60's, that I personally remember. Thousands of years ago, it didn't destroy the Roman Empire - quite the opposite.

Islam v Islamism? How racist of you. Do they all look alike, from Africa to Greece to the Middle East? Not one terrorist in the group of all the Muslims I've worked with - and they worked for the DoD, before and after 9/11. You seem to be confused. There are also gay Muslims. Why are you so full of hate, that you feel such a need to lie? Should I make the same comparisons, and claim that all Christians are psychopathic, snake handling, tongue speaking hate mongers that go around tying gays to fences and torturing and killing them? After all, that's what some Fundamentalists do - so I guess the world should make the same generalities that you make. On a factual note, there are more Christian Terrorists than there are Muslim Terrorists, both within the US, and internationally.

Roman Empire has fallen to the hordes of barbarians. Wanna the same destiny? Ok, no problems )

How racist of you.

Me? Are you really saying it after your own words about "marrying a large piece of dark meat"? Wonderful... At least, explain me a logic, how "Islam vs Islamism" related to racism... ))

Your logical arguments ended - so, you started psaking against me... Ok, now I see, there are no reasonable arguments for gay marriages, only a big piece of propaganda and irrational will to reach this target by all means...

 

[Sneekin]

There are lots of societies allowing same sex marriage now.

Most of the western world as a matter of fact.

But hey- you are in luck- the Islamic world does not allow same sex marriage- but do allow polygamy(which is as ancient as marriage is).

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.

Oh, no problems, Muslim fastfood - shaurma - is really more tasty than burgers

Your propaganda in US now trying to mix Islam and Islamism - but really it's very different things, it could become an evil joke, if it will be continued...

p.s. 11-15 years is too few for world processes... I'm watching TV news - in 80th US used a terrible weapon against USSR - a freedom of info and opinion. USSR absorbs it as idea fully (instead of other states) - and fell. Now, after 30 years you have RT - and all your media screamed about "ideological diversion and so on" because now RT much close to truth than others ALL thing we invented and advanced - are returned to us after some decades...

Wrong - schawarma is a Turkish (Islam is their main religion) food, not a Muslim food. Many Muslims don't eat it. It's made the same as gyro meat that the Greeks use (Greece was invaded by the Turks) - just different compositions. It's roasted up to a day - not fast food at all. It's the national food of Turkey, not Muslims. The fact is, the meats used must be Halal. Not all shawarma is Halal. Loosely translated, it means meat roasted on a spit. If you are that concerned, realize that commercial gyros, shawarma and Döner are normally Halal.

Want to share with us how this has anything to do with civil Marriage? Planning on marrying a large piece of dark roasted meat?

11-15 years? Try thousands of years. Even recently, I've given you examples dating back to the 60's, that I personally remember. Thousands of years ago, it didn't destroy the Roman Empire - quite the opposite.

Islam v Islamism? How racist of you. Do they all look alike, from Africa to Greece to the Middle East? Not one terrorist in the group of all the Muslims I've worked with - and they worked for the DoD, before and after 9/11. You seem to be confused. There are also gay Muslims. Why are you so full of hate, that you feel such a need to lie? Should I make the same comparisons, and claim that all Christians are psychopathic, snake handling, tongue speaking hate mongers that go around tying gays to fences and torturing and killing them? After all, that's what some Fundamentalists do - so I guess the world should make the same generalities that you make. On a factual note, there are more Christian Terrorists than there are Muslim Terrorists, both within the US, and internationally.

Roman Empire has fallen to the hordes of barbarians. Wanna the same destiny? Ok, no problems )

How racist of you.

Me? Are you really saying it after your own words about "marrying a large piece of dark meat"? Wonderful... At least, explain me a logic, how "Islam vs Islamism" related to racism... ))

Your logical arguments ended - so, you started psaking against me... Ok, now I see, there are no reasonable arguments for gay marriages, only a big piece of propaganda and irrational will to reach this target by all means...

I see history isn't your fine point. The emperor was only in power until age 22. His sexual preference had nothing to do with the fall of Rome. Try and INTELLIGENTLY and TRUTHFULLY share with us how it had any impact.

Tell me how the children I grew up with, who had same sex parents, had any impact on 4 generations following - they were much more educated than you, and much more affluent. So if we use your logic, then we all should have same sex parents - we'd be better off.

Yes, I'm saying that - shows just how perverted you are. I said that because you are more focused on a lie about a piece of roasted meat from Turkey than you are about facts. You're wrong about the religion, and you are 100 percent off topic about marriage in the United States. Hint - these is the US Message Board - the US stands for United States. The thread is about gay-marriage - not about meat you seem overly fascinated about. So if you love your meat that much, marry it. Otherwise, stay on topic and answer questions put to you.

Psaking? That's not a word in any language. I point out your stupidity - that a roast of meat is somehow related to terrorism - when it's a common food throughout the Arab, and not Muslim world. You are unable to answer my questions, so you ask how a race of people (Semitic, which is a race of people that are followers of the Abrahamic religions), nowadays known as Hebrew and Arabic. So rather than answer a question, you fell into a trap. Begone! You lack the education.

You saw no arguments for gay marriage (which no longer exists, Sbiker. The US recognizes MARRIAGE. Marriage, to those of us that are able to read, is a civil contract between two people. It's a right. No arguments? You mean that Due Process and Equal Protection only apply to those you grant them to? Wrong.

You can have opinions. You are claiming them as fact. If they are facts, you must be able to back them up. You can't, you just go off on a tangent about your meat fantasies. Are you going to answer? Or go out for a gyro? Why must you persecute religious people for their diet? Do you attack Catholics when they didn't eat meat on Friday? The Talmud says you can't mix meat and milk (dairy). Learn what Kosher is. Learn what Halal and Haram means.

Apparently you are quick to make generalities about all Muslims, all Gays, other religious, ethnic, sexual or social groups. The very definition of bigotry. The English noun bigot is a term used to describe a prejudiced or closed-minded person, especially one who is intolerant or hostile towards different social groups (e.g. racial or religious groups), and especially one whose own beliefs are perceived as unreasonable or excessively narrow-minded, superstitious, or hypocritical.

 

[Sneekin]

There are lots of societies allowing same sex marriage now.

Most of the western world as a matter of fact.

But hey- you are in luck- the Islamic world does not allow same sex marriage- but do allow polygamy(which is as ancient as marriage is).

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.

Oh, no problems, Muslim fastfood - shaurma - is really more tasty than burgers

Your propaganda in US now trying to mix Islam and Islamism - but really it's very different things, it could become an evil joke, if it will be continued...

p.s. 11-15 years is too few for world processes... I'm watching TV news - in 80th US used a terrible weapon against USSR - a freedom of info and opinion. USSR absorbs it as idea fully (instead of other states) - and fell. Now, after 30 years you have RT - and all your media screamed about "ideological diversion and so on" because now RT much close to truth than others ALL thing we invented and advanced - are returned to us after some decades...

Wrong - schawarma is a Turkish (Islam is their main religion) food, not a Muslim food. Many Muslims don't eat it. It's made the same as gyro meat that the Greeks use (Greece was invaded by the Turks) - just different compositions. It's roasted up to a day - not fast food at all. It's the national food of Turkey, not Muslims. The fact is, the meats used must be Halal. Not all shawarma is Halal. Loosely translated, it means meat roasted on a spit. If you are that concerned, realize that commercial gyros, shawarma and Döner are normally Halal.

Want to share with us how this has anything to do with civil Marriage? Planning on marrying a large piece of dark roasted meat?

11-15 years? Try thousands of years. Even recently, I've given you examples dating back to the 60's, that I personally remember. Thousands of years ago, it didn't destroy the Roman Empire - quite the opposite.

Islam v Islamism? How racist of you. Do they all look alike, from Africa to Greece to the Middle East? Not one terrorist in the group of all the Muslims I've worked with - and they worked for the DoD, before and after 9/11. You seem to be confused. There are also gay Muslims. Why are you so full of hate, that you feel such a need to lie? Should I make the same comparisons, and claim that all Christians are psychopathic, snake handling, tongue speaking hate mongers that go around tying gays to fences and torturing and killing them? After all, that's what some Fundamentalists do - so I guess the world should make the same generalities that you make. On a factual note, there are more Christian Terrorists than there are Muslim Terrorists, both within the US, and internationally.

Roman Empire has fallen to the hordes of barbarians. Wanna the same destiny? Ok, no problems )

How racist of you.

Me? Are you really saying it after your own words about "marrying a large piece of dark meat"? Wonderful... At least, explain me a logic, how "Islam vs Islamism" related to racism... ))

Your logical arguments ended - so, you started psaking against me... Ok, now I see, there are no reasonable arguments for gay marriages, only a big piece of propaganda and irrational will to reach this target by all means...

Oh yes, heterosexual empires have fallen time and time again - do you want the same destiny? Your own statements actually contradict your "facts". Your logic actually would indicate anything other than a one man / one woman marriage would be better, including gay marriage and/or plural marriage.

 

[emilynghiem]

[
Actually we do not have a bi-judicial system. The Beth Din of America only functions as arbitration panels and if the outcome is outside a state or federal statutory law, the courts overturn them. They function no differently than private arbitrators for contract law.

And Sharia law in the United States can only act the same way.

Banning Sharia from doing arbitration in the way that Beth Din does would violate the Constitution.

Meanwhile, any Sharia in the United States that violated U.S. law would be overturned by the courts, or face criminal prosecution if it broke criminal laws.

There is no constitutional power over a state law regarding the banning of sharia law.

Dear Tennyson

If Muslims petition to change the wording because "Shariah Law" is overly broad
and unintentionally bans voluntary practice of prayer and charity by Muslims in private,
but the state does not accommodate this as a religious conflict or bias,
then the federal govt could be petitioned if it doesn't get resolved on a state level.

Emily,

There is no constitutional concept of a state or individual petitioning the federal government over the Bill of Rights.

Nonsense Tennyson how can prohibition be repealed if there wasn't a process?
if amendments can amend the Constitution, certainly they can clarify other amendments,
such as clarifying that free exercise of religion applies to ALL beliefs and creeds
not just members of organized religions.

 

[emilynghiem]

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

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

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

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

Hmmmm, I'll go with Thomas Jefferson who wrote in the Declaration of Independence that "We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." See that "pursuit of happiness" bit? Yeah, right there. That covers gay marriage.

Dear westwall but also the Constitution includes not depriving liberty of persons without due process of laws to prove that a violation occurred first.
So if both sides feel the other is depriving them of representation, then both sides still have to answer to each other
before ASSUMING that it's the other side that is seeking to infringe or impose.

Neither side agrees to the arguments of the other.

This isn't settled or proven yet, and at this point it seems at least mutual.
So if both sides keep pushing for a policy that the other side objects to,
they are equally guilty of discriminating against the creed and representation of the others.

 

[emilynghiem]

And Sharia law in the United States can only act the same way.

Banning Sharia from doing arbitration in the way that Beth Din does would violate the Constitution.

Meanwhile, any Sharia in the United States that violated U.S. law would be overturned by the courts, or face criminal prosecution if it broke criminal laws.

There is no constitutional power over a state law regarding the banning of sharia law.

Once again, EXCELLENT demonstration of lying. I'm quoting directly from established CASE LAW. The courts, on more than one occasion, have made sure that the US decision didn't violate said law. You are an internet troll and buffoon. I can see you've repeatedly threatened and attacked and refused direct questions for verification and references. Sorry, you can't bully me, Tenny. You bore me. But I'm always happy to point out your stupidity. I used to think you were just ignorant of a few facts, but you have proven that you are either completely stupid, or doing nothing but trolling to try and "win" these threads. There is no win or lose - but in your case, it's compounding one ignorant lie after another.

You cannot provide any Article or clause in the Construction to support your claim; that is why you have not. You cannot provide one iota of evidence that this was the intent; that is why you have not. The last bastion of one not educated regarding the Constitution and history is to cry about case law because they do not have an argument and cannot back up their statements with any historical evidence.

Yet, Troll, 4 people have already provided proof. Begone, trolling gnat. How many times before you understand you have been proven wrong? Again, CHILD, address posts to the person you are speaking to. We don't want to read the blather prior to your inane rants. Otherwise, you'll be talking to yourself and ignored by the intelligent people. buh-bye....

You have yet to provide any article or clause to support your claim. You have not provided any evidence that your views are substantiated by the ;language or intent of the Constitution or Bill of Rights. You can dodge all you want; it only reflects poorly on you, not me.

Dear Tennyson all of your views and opinions as well as Sneekin
are equal beliefs under the Free Exercise clause. (you can use the precedence or whatever
you want to communicate your beliefs, but your beliefs are yours independent of that and do not require justification.
what they require is consent of others if you are going to agree on them, so whatever language or laws
it take to communicate and establish that agreement between people is part of the democratic process, using freedom of speech press right to petition and due process).

I do NOT support the practice of IMPOSING interpretations of govt laws and precedence that disparage the political beliefs of others to express them using laws even in different ways.
People read the Second Amendment differently to express their beliefs, so until they reach a consensus, I am not going to censor one or impose the other, but continue including both interpretations for each person who uses the law to state their values.

If you and Sneekin depend on Case Law or written law or ruling "before having that freedom to apply it to political beliefs" that is your prerogative. But don't impose that on me. I am not trying to impose this in public, but I do use this in private to include everyone's beliefs and expressions of those as their honest attempt to share in their own words and terms they use for those concepts and principles.

I recognize the right to your own beliefs, and we are just using whatever means
it take to communicate how to establish a consensus on that.

 

[emilynghiem]

All you have are twentieth century activist court rulings. You have never once relied on the language, the debates, or the intent of any part of the Constitution or the Bill of Rights..

Since the current court rulings that are in effect and are binding rely upon the language and intent of the Constitution(you do know that the Bill of Rights are part of the Constitution- right? Saying the Constitution and the Bill of Rights is like saying you were relying upon the Old Testament- and the 10 Commandments. )

The Bill of Rights are part of the Constitution? When did that happen? That was not the intent. Why was the first draft of the Bill of Rights rejected from being inserted into the body of the articles of the Constitution that the respective rights applied?

Dear Tennyson the passage of the Constitution was contingent on the agreement that a Bill of Rights would be added
to define the individual rights not protected in the body of the Constitution that only defined federal powers and duties.

so you cannot have the Constitution without the Bill of Rights
or it is like having the OT of the Bible without the NT!

In fact, the same way the Bible is summarized in 2-3 great commandments
1. love of God with all our heart mind and soul
2. love of neighbor as ourselves
3. love of one another as Christ Jesus loves us (ie with forgiveness and correction
that is Restorative Justice, not judgment and punishment or retributive justice)

I would say the First Amendment summarizes the whole of the law
that all other laws are based on
1. free exercise of religion as free will, equal executive power of each person
2. free speech and freedom of religion as equal judicial freedom of each person
3. free press and right to assemble as equal legislative or power of attorney of each person to authorize contracts
and the right of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition for redress of grievances
combines these as democratic due process of laws to resolve conflicts and establish agreed law and order.

All other laws come from these basic natural laws
that are inherent in human nature as combining
* Mind
* Body
* Spirit

where laws or contracts/agreements connect
* INDIVIDUAL to
* COLLECTIVE levels, based on the
* RELATIONSHIP between the two.

both religious and political/civil laws attempt to define the terms of that RELATIONSHIP
so you will see this same pattern of THREE levels
in any system of laws, religion, philosophy or govt.

 

[emilynghiem]

The Bill of Rights are part of the Constitution? When did that happen? That was not the intent. Why was the first draft of the Bill of Rights rejected from being inserted into the body of the articles of the Constitution that the respective rights applied?

Troll - The Bill of Rights is the collective name for the first ten amendments to the United States Constitution. This should have been taught to you by sixth grade if not sooner. Did you not even complete the sixth grade?

You seem to have forgotten to address this:

Why was the first draft of the Bill of Rights rejected from being inserted into the body of the articles of the Constitution that the respective rights applied? This would have made the Bill of Rights part of the Constitution and subject to the Article V amendment process. The idea of making the Bill of Rights part of the Constitution as were the Declaration of Rights in the Virginia constitution was summarily rejected.

Troll boy, wipe the drool off your chin, and answer questions. The bill of rights is inserted into the constitution. This isn't history class, we aren't answering the why it is or isn't, as you lack the courtesy and intelligence to answer those put to you. Then again, you don't even know what century this is.......maybe you should ask your primary school teachers. I realize it's hard for someone as mentally challenged as yourself, but try and stick to the topic, which isn't the bill or rights being incorporated into the constitution, it's as to whether or not gay marriage a constitutional right.

I'm shocked and amazed that you are so ignorant that you think we can vote away freedoms or rights for a group of people, whether by Race, Sexual Orientation, Religion, National Origin (Tenny, note that these are unique groups of people only, not meant to imply they have preferential treatment or classes). You see, fool, that would again violate the US Constitution. All men are created equal, not just old white men.

Read the 34 page ruling of Obergefell v. Hodges if you want that answered. The ruling clearly stated that the basic Constitutional notions of freedom mean“same-sex couples may exercise the right to marry.”.

Dear Sneekin and Tennyson
This business of courts deciding right to marriage is where we see a split in political creed and beliefs.
1. One is the Statist belief that judges can rule in cases of beliefs, including belief in right to marriage, right to life, right to health care, etc.
2. One is this is unconstitutional on 3-4 grounds: Amendment 1, 10, 14 and separation of powers that belongs to legislative authority

The Statist belief 1 can be seen as equal to the Constitutional belief 2 for people to choose freely and to exercise as long as it doesn't infringe on the equal rights of other beliefs; and as such, then neither side can impose on the other without violating amendment 1 both sides invoke to protect their beliefs.

Thus they either tie, and govt. cannot take sides without discrimination against the equal protection of the other belief. Or the parties agree how to resolve this consensually and not violate or coerce exclude or discriminate against each other's equal beliefs and protection of laws. But if govt gets used to impose one political belief on the other, we already know from experience and from our own beliefs, this is not constitutional but abuse of authority; either the nonstatist IS abusing govt to *establish* their political belief against statism, or the free choice person IS violating their OWN defense on grounds of freedom from someone else's religion. These are BOTH contradictory and thus they both fail, and both sides know this and complain. So clearly we aren't going to settle issues of belief or creed this way, and I suggest mediation, separation of policy, and consensus on alternatives to avoid the bullying coercion route.

Now, refute this statement and show me how this isn't fair to both sides .

Say what?? You think people don't have a right to marry?

Dear Faun and Sneekin i am trying to go back and thank all your msgs.
I will answer later but trying to get pages 100 - 145 done.

As for right to marry I already explained under my system
the right already exists and is inalienable under religious freedom.

to me it is an INSULT to require courts to rule on this as that makes it dependent on govt and not inalienable!

I interpret govt different from others because I include different political beliefs
as equal religious freedom that can neither be established or prohibited
but should be agreed upon by consensus in order to carry weight of authority of law.

My system is different, but since I cannot impose it on others
I can only explain it to you, and hope you will continue trying to accommodate me
along with the other views of Constitutional govt.

Tennyson does not see the BOR as part of the Constitution,
so he is like a Constitutional "Jew who lives by OT letter of the law"
and rejects the NT that teaches how to liberate people as equal by the Spirit of the laws
given in the Bill of Rights and 14th Amendments.

yet another denomination to deal with.
Never seen quite like that before!
But reminds me of Libertarians who reject IRS and Federal Reserve
as extraconstitutional. That is like adding something to the Bible that doesn't belong there!

Thanks and I hope to incorporate all your points into a position statement
outlining where the different issues stand on both sides.

We need help to communicate these, but going through laws
and using language that doesn't speak to everyone the same way
has be en obstructing and skewing this process of reaching agreement
on what the intent and laws mean, and what govt can or cannot do.

Thanks, if I don't finish now, I will try again later to thank all your
messages and content rightwinger and Syriusly also Thanks!!!

 

[emilynghiem]

Troll boy, wipe the drool off your chin, and answer questions. The bill of rights is inserted into the constitution. This isn't history class, we aren't answering the why it is or isn't, as you lack the courtesy and intelligence to answer those put to you. Then again, you don't even know what century this is.......maybe you should ask your primary school teachers. I realize it's hard for someone as mentally challenged as yourself, but try and stick to the topic, which isn't the bill or rights being incorporated into the constitution, it's as to whether or not gay marriage a constitutional right.

I'm shocked and amazed that you are so ignorant that you think we can vote away freedoms or rights for a group of people, whether by Race, Sexual Orientation, Religion, National Origin (Tenny, note that these are unique groups of people only, not meant to imply they have preferential treatment or classes). You see, fool, that would again violate the US Constitution. All men are created equal, not just old white men.

Read the 34 page ruling of Obergefell v. Hodges if you want that answered. The ruling clearly stated that the basic Constitutional notions of freedom mean“same-sex couples may exercise the right to marry.”.

Dear Sneekin and Tennyson
This business of courts deciding right to marriage is where we see a split in political creed and beliefs.
1. One is the Statist belief that judges can rule in cases of beliefs, including belief in right to marriage, right to life, right to health care, etc.
2. One is this is unconstitutional on 3-4 grounds: Amendment 1, 10, 14 and separation of powers that belongs to legislative authority

The Statist belief 1 can be seen as equal to the Constitutional belief 2 for people to choose freely and to exercise as long as it doesn't infringe on the equal rights of other beliefs; and as such, then neither side can impose on the other without violating amendment 1 both sides invoke to protect their beliefs.

Thus they either tie, and govt. cannot take sides without discrimination against the equal protection of the other belief. Or the parties agree how to resolve this consensually and not violate or coerce exclude or discriminate against each other's equal beliefs and protection of laws. But if govt gets used to impose one political belief on the other, we already know from experience and from our own beliefs, this is not constitutional but abuse of authority; either the nonstatist IS abusing govt to *establish* their political belief against statism, or the free choice person IS violating their OWN defense on grounds of freedom from someone else's religion. These are BOTH contradictory and thus they both fail, and both sides know this and complain. So clearly we aren't going to settle issues of belief or creed this way, and I suggest mediation, separation of policy, and consensus on alternatives to avoid the bullying coercion route.

Now, refute this statement and show me how this isn't fair to both sides .

Say what?? You think people don't have a right to marry?

Quite the opposite. People do have the right to marry, that is the point syriusly and I were trying to make. Emily thinks that you can't pass a law unless both sides are happy - because she claims that gay marriage violates someone else's religion. We've explained this to her before, and it didn't sink in. Obergefell didn't make SSM a requirement for any religion, it simply says the states cannot refuse to marry two people of the same sex. Windsor was a decision in which the United States Supreme Court held that restricting U.S. federal interpretation of "marriage" and "spouse" to apply only to opposite-sex unions, by Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), is unconstitutional under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment; Justice Kennedy wrote: "The federal statute is invalid, for no legitimate purpose overcomes the purpose and effect to disparage and to injure those whom the State, by its marriage laws, sought to protect in personhood and dignity." This gave Edith Windsor the federal estate tax exemption for surviving spouses.

Several people here are confused - they believe the government is usurping a religious right. Marriage, in both Windsor and Obergefell, addresses civil marriage. Several people claim SSM should be a civil union, and even civil ceremonies probably should be Civil Unions - which would violate the concept of separate but equal.

Emily - Government (SCOTUS) is not responsible for making people happy, nor are they imposing political beliefs. They are ruling solely on the point of law. You can be a devout evangelical that thinks SSM is perverse, damning, etc, and that everyone should be killed. As long as you don't kill (or threaten), it's your opinion. The government is not required to to make you happy in regards to religion, creed, etc. The first amendment grants us freedom of religion (ergo, also freedom from imposition of any religion upon us). You will never make the alt-right fundamentalist extremists happy unless SSM is overturned - which is a violation of the civil rights of all other americans. They do not choose who gets married. Just like the proposed FADA - it violates due process.

Dear Sneekin The point is about BELIEFS. The government is not in the business of deciding policy on faith based Beliefs or forcing people to change or comprise their beliefs. They may ask people to leave their beliefs out instead of pushing then through govt. So if Christians have to reduce prayer to something secular and neutral why not ask LGBT to do the same.

As for happiness, that follows from not violating people's equal religious freedom and protection from discrimination. That would take care of itself as a result. When people restore their faith in relations with govt and in due process and consensus, this brings peace as a result.

The issue is not pushing biased faith based creeds through govt.

It not only makes people "unhappy" but it violates natural laws and human nature to coerce ANYONE to change their beliefs because another group forced it through govt. That violation and abuse is contradictory to Constitutional limits and protections. The unhappiness caused is a natural expression of dissent that is otherwise denied if this isn't resolved inclusive lyrics of all people interests and beliefs

No one is forced to change their beliefs over gay marriage. No one is being forced to marry a gay person against their will and no one is being forced to accept other gay folks who wish to marry each other.

People on both sides are being forced to change terms of the contract without agreeing to the changes and how they are worded or applied.
Unless the process recognizes consensus, it is pressuring one side to defend itself against the other, which isn't fair to eiether side.
Faun

 

[emilynghiem]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And orientation is not like race and racial segregation.

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

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

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

1. Orientation is like race, color, creed, national origin, etc (segregation can occur for any of those, including orientation). Orientation is believed to occur NON-SPIRITUALLY prior to birth. It doesn't occur from sexual abuse, because close to 50 percent of the population (male and female) would be gay, based on abuse). People don't change their orientation, that's been disproven as well. Being gay is not the act of sex. You can be straight or gay, and never have sex. so wrong.... Changing one's faith is changing your philosophy, not the same as you changing who you love.
2. LGBT is not a free choice. Why do you claim it is? You can't just change it, that's been proven literally thousands if not millions of times. ex-gays become people that are still gay, not having sex, or sneaking around having same sex behind the back of their opposite sex partner. Seen it happen too many times.
3. What's wrong with "colored only" drinking fountains, entrances, restaurants, etc? Did you really ask? Different religious beliefs and political parties do not meet the criteria for separate but equal. Add that to your list of questions to ask an attorney.
Who are you asking about Catholic v Lutheran offensiveness? It has nothing to do with separate but equal, either. Really not cool.

Dear Sneekin
one area we disagree on
I find that with orientation with SOME it is not a choice and cannot change
but with others it is behavior or conditions only that can be changed.
If I had to guess, I'd say the majority cannot change and it's just the
minority that can; but as with LGBT and transgender being small
percentages, that doesn't justify excluding those either! Equal inclusion
means all, not just listening to the majority of LGBT and excluding the minority!

Like you said, if people are suppressing their natural orientation,
then the external behavior on top CAN be changed. So that applies
to homosexual behavior if the underlying default nature is heterosexual.

I do not agree with imposing either the belief that
* all cases are natural and not a choice
* all cases are unnatural and a choice of behavior

By the time we even agree to accept that it's not all one way or the other,
that same process will require the same openness and inclusion
needed to work through the issues to reach consensus or separation on policies.

Thanks for your help to sort through all the points.
I hope to outline these and present position statements
to party and religious leaders to work out these issues without
judging people for their differences in views and experiences.

All of them are valid from their viewpoints, and should be
included if we are going to represent all people in the outcomes.

 

[Syriusly]

[Q
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...=

How are gays 'destroying' anything by spending years trying to partcipate in marriage?

My marriage was not destroyed because Emily and Trisha can now legally marry- was yours?

Idyllic picture... Let's continue to paint it.

Today Emily and Trisha perform legal marriage - well, let them to live happy.

Tomorrow they want children. Any parentless children - ok, it's good, let them to have.

Day after - they don't want children with unknown genetics. They want one of YOUR children. Why not - it's just another step to keep their rights.

Day after - they have a lobby to adopt law for obligatory homosexual practice. You dont' want it? "How do you know, you don't want, it's just a stereotype... Prove, you don't have stereotypes, make a homo-sex regularily"! Offcorse, it's for chilldren too...

Today Jim and Sally are legally married.
Tomorrow they want children- but Jim is infertile so they use a sperm donor- ok, it's good, let them.
Day after- they don't want children with unknown genetics- Jim and Sally want one of your children. Why not- is just another step to keep their rights.
Day after- they have a lobby to adopt a law prohibiting homosexual practice- oh wait- Jim and Sally did that years ago, until the courts overturned Jim and Sally telling Americans what kind of sex we are allowed to have.

Moral: Allowing Jim and Sally to marry will mean they are coming to take your children away.

Ok, it's not good too, but it's very strange position. "We have a problem here - let's add here to another one". Problems must be solved, not to be hoarded. We have problems in tradition families - let's struggle for psychologist help, for control for them! It's more important... vital important for a lot of children, than a wishes of some gays - because this wishes are not needs of first like, but just a type of decoration of existing lifestyle...

I have no clue what your post has to do with my post- nor do I know what 'problem' you are referring to.

Couples- straight or gay- can marry- regardless of whether they have children or intend to have children.
People- straight or gay- can have children- whether or not they are married or whether they ever intend to get married.
Marriage exists outside of parenting. However, marriage is a benefit to children when their parents marry- as it provides some legal protections to the children.

Preventing gay couples from marrying does not help a single child. Not one.
But it can harm children.

Why would you want that?

 

[Syriusly]

There are lots of societies allowing same sex marriage now.

Most of the western world as a matter of fact.

But hey- you are in luck- the Islamic world does not allow same sex marriage- but do allow polygamy(which is as ancient as marriage is).

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.

Oh, no problems, Muslim fastfood - shaurma - is really more tasty than burgers

Your propaganda in US now trying to mix Islam and Islamism - but really it's very different things, it could become an evil joke, if it will be continued...

p.s. 11-15 years is too few for world processes... I'm watching TV news - in 80th US used a terrible weapon against USSR - a freedom of info and opinion. USSR absorbs it as idea fully (instead of other states) - and fell. Now, after 30 years you have RT - and all your media screamed about "ideological diversion and so on" because now RT much close to truth than others ALL thing we invented and advanced - are returned to us after some decades...

Wrong - schawarma is a Turkish (Islam is their main religion) food, not a Muslim food. Many Muslims don't eat it. It's made the same as gyro meat that the Greeks use (Greece was invaded by the Turks) - just different compositions. It's roasted up to a day - not fast food at all. It's the national food of Turkey, not Muslims. The fact is, the meats used must be Halal. Not all shawarma is Halal. Loosely translated, it means meat roasted on a spit. If you are that concerned, realize that commercial gyros, shawarma and Döner are normally Halal.

Want to share with us how this has anything to do with civil Marriage? Planning on marrying a large piece of dark roasted meat?

11-15 years? Try thousands of years. Even recently, I've given you examples dating back to the 60's, that I personally remember. Thousands of years ago, it didn't destroy the Roman Empire - quite the opposite.

Islam v Islamism? How racist of you. Do they all look alike, from Africa to Greece to the Middle East? Not one terrorist in the group of all the Muslims I've worked with - and they worked for the DoD, before and after 9/11. You seem to be confused. There are also gay Muslims. Why are you so full of hate, that you feel such a need to lie? Should I make the same comparisons, and claim that all Christians are psychopathic, snake handling, tongue speaking hate mongers that go around tying gays to fences and torturing and killing them? After all, that's what some Fundamentalists do - so I guess the world should make the same generalities that you make. On a factual note, there are more Christian Terrorists than there are Muslim Terrorists, both within the US, and internationally.

Roman Empire has fallen to the hordes of barbarians. Wanna the same destiny? Ok, no problems )
.

Yep- after existing for a thousand years, Rome fell after converting to Christianity.

I think the lesson is clear......

 

[Syriusly]

Dear Sneekin and Tennyson
This business of courts deciding right to marriage is where we see a split in political creed and beliefs.
1. One is the Statist belief that judges can rule in cases of beliefs, including belief in right to marriage, right to life, right to health care, etc.
2. One is this is unconstitutional on 3-4 grounds: Amendment 1, 10, 14 and separation of powers that belongs to legislative authority

The Statist belief 1 can be seen as equal to the Constitutional belief 2 for people to choose freely and to exercise as long as it doesn't infringe on the equal rights of other beliefs; and as such, then neither side can impose on the other without violating amendment 1 both sides invoke to protect their beliefs.

Thus they either tie, and govt. cannot take sides without discrimination against the equal protection of the other belief. Or the parties agree how to resolve this consensually and not violate or coerce exclude or discriminate against each other's equal beliefs and protection of laws. But if govt gets used to impose one political belief on the other, we already know from experience and from our own beliefs, this is not constitutional but abuse of authority; either the nonstatist IS abusing govt to *establish* their political belief against statism, or the free choice person IS violating their OWN defense on grounds of freedom from someone else's religion. These are BOTH contradictory and thus they both fail, and both sides know this and complain. So clearly we aren't going to settle issues of belief or creed this way, and I suggest mediation, separation of policy, and consensus on alternatives to avoid the bullying coercion route.

Now, refute this statement and show me how this isn't fair to both sides .

Say what?? You think people don't have a right to marry?

Quite the opposite. People do have the right to marry, that is the point syriusly and I were trying to make. Emily thinks that you can't pass a law unless both sides are happy - because she claims that gay marriage violates someone else's religion. We've explained this to her before, and it didn't sink in. Obergefell didn't make SSM a requirement for any religion, it simply says the states cannot refuse to marry two people of the same sex. Windsor was a decision in which the United States Supreme Court held that restricting U.S. federal interpretation of "marriage" and "spouse" to apply only to opposite-sex unions, by Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), is unconstitutional under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment; Justice Kennedy wrote: "The federal statute is invalid, for no legitimate purpose overcomes the purpose and effect to disparage and to injure those whom the State, by its marriage laws, sought to protect in personhood and dignity." This gave Edith Windsor the federal estate tax exemption for surviving spouses.

Several people here are confused - they believe the government is usurping a religious right. Marriage, in both Windsor and Obergefell, addresses civil marriage. Several people claim SSM should be a civil union, and even civil ceremonies probably should be Civil Unions - which would violate the concept of separate but equal.

Emily - Government (SCOTUS) is not responsible for making people happy, nor are they imposing political beliefs. They are ruling solely on the point of law. You can be a devout evangelical that thinks SSM is perverse, damning, etc, and that everyone should be killed. As long as you don't kill (or threaten), it's your opinion. The government is not required to to make you happy in regards to religion, creed, etc. The first amendment grants us freedom of religion (ergo, also freedom from imposition of any religion upon us). You will never make the alt-right fundamentalist extremists happy unless SSM is overturned - which is a violation of the civil rights of all other americans. They do not choose who gets married. Just like the proposed FADA - it violates due process.

Dear Sneekin The point is about BELIEFS. The government is not in the business of deciding policy on faith based Beliefs or forcing people to change or comprise their beliefs. They may ask people to leave their beliefs out instead of pushing then through govt. So if Christians have to reduce prayer to something secular and neutral why not ask LGBT to do the same.

As for happiness, that follows from not violating people's equal religious freedom and protection from discrimination. That would take care of itself as a result. When people restore their faith in relations with govt and in due process and consensus, this brings peace as a result.

The issue is not pushing biased faith based creeds through govt.

It not only makes people "unhappy" but it violates natural laws and human nature to coerce ANYONE to change their beliefs because another group forced it through govt. That violation and abuse is contradictory to Constitutional limits and protections. The unhappiness caused is a natural expression of dissent that is otherwise denied if this isn't resolved inclusive lyrics of all people interests and beliefs

No one is forced to change their beliefs over gay marriage. No one is being forced to marry a gay person against their will and no one is being forced to accept other gay folks who wish to marry each other.

People on both sides are being forced to change terms of the contract without agreeing to the changes and how they are worded or applied.]

There are only two parties to the marriage contract.

Who is being forced to change the terms of the marriage contract?

If two gay men decide to get married, then they agree to the terms of the marriage contract.
If a man and a woman decide to get married, then they agree to the terms of the marriage contract.

But- the man and the woman do not get to prevent the contract between the gay men because the man and woman are not party to their contract.

Once again you are confusing the issue. The issue is not the marriage contract- but the right to marry.
And yes- there are persons who would like to prevent gay couples from marrying- and there are people who would like to prevent mixed race people from marrying- and there are people who would like to prevent people of two different religions from marrying.

But none of those people are part of the marriage contract- they just want to control who can marry.

Why would you want that?

 

[Syriusly]

Troll - The Bill of Rights is the collective name for the first ten amendments to the United States Constitution. This should have been taught to you by sixth grade if not sooner. Did you not even complete the sixth grade?

You seem to have forgotten to address this:

Why was the first draft of the Bill of Rights rejected from being inserted into the body of the articles of the Constitution that the respective rights applied? This would have made the Bill of Rights part of the Constitution and subject to the Article V amendment process. The idea of making the Bill of Rights part of the Constitution as were the Declaration of Rights in the Virginia constitution was summarily rejected.

Troll boy, wipe the drool off your chin, and answer questions. The bill of rights is inserted into the constitution. This isn't history class, we aren't answering the why it is or isn't, as you lack the courtesy and intelligence to answer those put to you. Then again, you don't even know what century this is.......maybe you should ask your primary school teachers. I realize it's hard for someone as mentally challenged as yourself, but try and stick to the topic, which isn't the bill or rights being incorporated into the constitution, it's as to whether or not gay marriage a constitutional right.

I'm shocked and amazed that you are so ignorant that you think we can vote away freedoms or rights for a group of people, whether by Race, Sexual Orientation, Religion, National Origin (Tenny, note that these are unique groups of people only, not meant to imply they have preferential treatment or classes). You see, fool, that would again violate the US Constitution. All men are created equal, not just old white men.

Read the 34 page ruling of Obergefell v. Hodges if you want that answered. The ruling clearly stated that the basic Constitutional notions of freedom mean“same-sex couples may exercise the right to marry.”.

Dear Sneekin and Tennyson
This business of courts deciding right to marriage is where we see a split in political creed and beliefs.
1. One is the Statist belief that judges can rule in cases of beliefs, including belief in right to marriage, right to life, right to health care, etc.
2. One is this is unconstitutional on 3-4 grounds: Amendment 1, 10, 14 and separation of powers that belongs to legislative authority

The Statist belief 1 can be seen as equal to the Constitutional belief 2 for people to choose freely and to exercise as long as it doesn't infringe on the equal rights of other beliefs; and as such, then neither side can impose on the other without violating amendment 1 both sides invoke to protect their beliefs.

Thus they either tie, and govt. cannot take sides without discrimination against the equal protection of the other belief. Or the parties agree how to resolve this consensually and not violate or coerce exclude or discriminate against each other's equal beliefs and protection of laws. But if govt gets used to impose one political belief on the other, we already know from experience and from our own beliefs, this is not constitutional but abuse of authority; either the nonstatist IS abusing govt to *establish* their political belief against statism, or the free choice person IS violating their OWN defense on grounds of freedom from someone else's religion. These are BOTH contradictory and thus they both fail, and both sides know this and complain. So clearly we aren't going to settle issues of belief or creed this way, and I suggest mediation, separation of policy, and consensus on alternatives to avoid the bullying coercion route.

Now, refute this statement and show me how this isn't fair to both sides .

Say what?? You think people don't have a right to marry?

Dear Faun and Sneekin i am trying to go back and thank all your msgs.
I will answer later but trying to get pages 100 - 145 done.

As for right to marry I already explained under my system
the right already exists and is inalienable under religious freedom.

to me it is an INSULT to require courts to rule on this as that makes it dependent on govt and not inalienable!

The courts rule on this issue because that is what the courts do. Courts act to protect our rights from the government who would restrict the rights of Americans.

Among the issues courts have ruled on that States had tried to restrict the rights of Americans include:

• guns
• birth control
• voting
• marriage
• religion
• speech

While you may think it is an insult that the courts address issues of rights, courts are the avenue for an individual to seek protection of his or her rights from the state.

 

[emilynghiem]

Ps Faun the compelling interest is upholding laws consistently.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Again the point is to have the state policy for all people whether this is agreed upon as civil unions, civil marriages, domestic partnerships,
or separate policies who knows, whatever the states agree to pass for all people.

And who would pay the cost is all the people who are lobbying to keep marriage or some form of it in the govt.

If you or others want to pay to reform it as just civil unions or split the policies by party,
yes, I would organize other Libertarians who believe in that to do the work or cover the costs.

We can create jobs for Veterans or other party leaders and candidates
who believe in limited govt and cutting or reforming social programs by transferring them to local jurisdiction.

We assess the cost of the most effective agreed way,
and include that in the reform proposal and budget.

with all the campaign funds fighting back and forth,
the billions spent on air time that does nothing to change policy directly
could go instead into setting up singlepayer health care
and social benefits in ways that everyone supports and nobody contests.

Sneekin

Also, all the costs to taxpayers of legal and corporate abuses
can be assessed, and start crediting back those costs to taxpayers
to fund or finance reforms to prevent future abuses and corruption.

Look at abuses of CPS!

The restitution owed for damages done by abuse of that authority
could also pay for the reforms needed, by crediting the cost to taxpayers
back into a fund that would be reallocated for proper reforms and corrections.

If we need separate legislation for that,
I'm willing to put the work in and raise the funds to set up such
a Grievance process that assess debts and damages,
credits it back to the state or taxpayers, and then sets up
means of backing those debts, possibly using
land property or programs as collateral, and selling shares
to donors or investors who buy out the debts or "lend" the money against them,
while wrongdoers either accept responsibility for paying back the debts
or the investors agree to buy them out in exchange for ownership of shares in the collateral.