Gay marriage is not a constitutional right

[Sneekin]

Dear Faun RE: conservative concept
1. are you talking about the policy credited to Reagan for opening up all hospitals to treat all people?
a. if you don't agree to the terms of taxpayers paying for that
and want to change them, why change it to something others don't agree with either?
b. why not go after prison budgets, convert those to medical treatment, research and education programs, and pay for medical education and training at the same time as offering public health services to both inmates and the general public for the same costs we are already paying?
c. why change it to insurance if not all people agree to that and insurance doesn't cover the need for training service providers, building facilities, researching or treating the CAUSE of disease

2. if you are talking about insurance mandates being a conservative idea
that was already debunked
a. it did not cover daily and routine health care, only CATASTROPHIC
b. it still respected STATES rights and did not ever get support to pass on a NATIONAL level
So changing it to mean FEDERAL regulation of ALL health care violates
Conservative principles on 2-3 counts: states rights, civil liberties, and religious freedom since govt cannot regulate the healing work that faith based programs do which only works in private as a free choice and can't be mandated

c. that's why I'm saying to separate two tracks or else agree to let spiritual healing be incorporated into public programs.

If you insist on keeping spiritual faith based programs out of govt,
then people cannot be penalized and forced under federal regulations at the same time.

As far as your question... no, I don't like the mandate. But then, it's a conservative concept that has always sounded stupid to me and I'm in favor of a national healthcare system.

Emily - STOP RAMBLING ON ABOUT A LAW THAT'S BEEN IN EFFECT FOR 30 YEARS.
a. No one cares what you think about it. If you want it changed, stop posting here and hit the pavement and get the signatures - convince your federal senators and congressmen - have them convince the republicans (some of which passed the Reagan bill 30 years ago, more than likely) that it's a bad thing. IT'S THE LAW. APPARENTLY ONE YOU DIDN'T BOTHER TO READ, EITHER. If they receive any federal dollars (ie, Medicare/Medicaid and others), they lose their tax-exempt status. All they have to do is give up that status.
b. Why? Because of the money YOUR STATE GETS from contracting out prison services. It's called kickbacks. You are also talking of violating the civil rights of the prisoners - you can't require them to participate in RDTE. Why not go with a single payer system, instead? One that gets everyone treated the same? Novel concept.
c. Because it's NOT YOUR CHOICE. Not everyone is going to like ANY method that's chosen.

2.
a. Emily, you are completely FULL OF S**T. The Heritage Foundation WROTE the ACA, in the 90's. Heritage is a CONSERVATIVE THINK TANK. It was written, because they wanted a plan in place in case Hillary's proposed health care plan as first lady was introduced. Tell me, who debunked this? Certainly not Heritage. Certainly not Romney, who implemented it in his home state. Claiming it was debunked demonstrates that you are either ignorant (failed to read up and try to debunk), or stupid - meaning unwilling to listen to others and refusing to believe facts. Which is it.
b. Did you check with Mitt Romney, where it didn't cover daily/routine health care? It most certainly does. Romney was first to implement it, and he could ONLY IMPLEMENT at a STATE LEVEL, as HE WAS GOVERNOR. Obama could implement it based on the recommendations of Congress - and it was modified to be across the board at the FEDERAL LEVEL. Another of your lies is that government can't regulate healing work of faith based programs (your snake handling, etc). There are SPECIFIC GUIDELINES that must be met - that don't violate the constitution.

I know you can't grasp the concept, but the RFRA doesn't overrule law. The cake/photo/etc lawsuits repeatedly prove you wrong.

c. You cannot separate into two tracks, you were told by 5 different people why now. We aren't telling you again.

You babbled: "If you insist on keeping spiritual faith based programs out of govt, then people cannot be penalized and forced under federal regulations at the same time."

We've told you repeatedly that it violates the first amendment. It's already been to the SCOTUS, and people most certainly can be penalized and forced under federal regulations. Your inability to understand, or your refusal (more than likely) is not our problem. Break the law, go to jail, at this point I am through arguing you about this off topic subject, where you continually babble about things you know nothing about.

 

[emilynghiem]

Dear Sneekin

A. Representatives represent me when these issues are resolved.
They are not getting represented yet, sorry!
Yes, I will go through govt to resolve them
but I have to be able to EXPLAIN them first.

I posted the letter to Ted Cruz office outlining even 3 of the grievances
that can be documented: http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10952408/

This has been going on until I find the PEOPLE to REDRESS those grievances.
[Of the people I've found who respect what it takes to represent me, most of
them are OUTSIDE GOVT. We have to form teams to connect with people
INSIDE govt to create the process that WILL represent these issues for resolution purposes!]

Not everyone can deal with this. And the ones who can are NOT ALL in govt positions!

Thanks for trying but it takes SPECIFIC people.
And then I can form a team with Congresswoman Lee to resolve these issues.
And if we can do it FT, we can use that same model for other issues
that HAVEN'T BEEN RESOLVED using the given legal or govt system as is.

B. So in general
NO the system of redressing grievances by assessing restitution owed
and crediting the taxmoney back to taxpayers
HASN'T BEEN IMPLEMENTED YET

I am teaming up with Jon Roland of the Libertarians and Constitution Society in Austin
and Ted Weisgal with the Diversity outreach of KPFT public radio
to try to organize some kind of party representation that can redress grievances.

The PROCESS that WOULD represent me in protecting the right
to petition to redress grievances by consensus and noncoercion
as the standard HASN'T BEEN proposed, offered or applied yet.

Thank you for helping to sort out the preliminary prep part.

At some point I will reach out to all law schools especially
anyone teaching Constitutional laws and ethics, to join the effort.

If it is really based on Consensus and Inclusion then everyone
will be able to use it to resolve their issues locally or nationally,

Thanks!

Emily,
I don't think you grasp how government works. Your representatives are elected, then they represent you. Even using your example - we need some way for people like you, who opt out of health insurance, to quit bankrupting the rest of us - we used a republican plan, the ACA, written by the Heritage think tank in the mid 90's. Romney implemented it, Obama implemented it, after a majority of Congress APPROVED it. You can't explain it, because I think you don't grasp the facts. They represented you. PP/ACA was implemented it, even though you don't like it. Like it or not, you were represented. Your next step is to contact your representatives, and see what can be done to shift the burden of paying for the lazy people (people who work who don't care that they rip the rest of us off). One will assume under the Trump regime, it will be overturned, and the rest of us will push to make sure if you don't pay for insurance because you just don't want to, can now be denied no matter what your health issues are. The majority of health care dollars are going against deadbeats who work and refuse to pay for coverage, and those that sign up for insurance weeks before a major surgery.

If you are banking on Cruz, that will be even a bigger joke.

While I can agree with you in part in concept only, the fact is, cheap people like you ruin it for the rest of us. My birth mother died in her mid 30's from a lung disease. It was in the early days of health insurance, but my father made sure insurance was paid before groceries were bought - which was good. My mother had congestive heart failure, treatment for TB, a double masectomy, all before the age of 35. She was being treated for TB, treated in a trial with a drug that was hailed as a cure - unfortunately, she was allergic to the (now commonplace) and went into Anaphylactic shock. She ended up on oxygen, filling up with fluid, and died days later. So......even then, costs were thousands of dollars. Nowadays, costs would be probably half a million. Insurance? Would pay for it. You refuse insurance? You expect ME to pay for it? That's NOT a viable solution, Emily.

Good luck grieving a law that's in full force and effect. That's really funny, since we grieve and arbitrate perceptions / conclusions that laws have been violated. The ACA is LAW. Good luck. We, the people don't get to grieve every dreamed up misconception we have. There are checks and balances. And if the ACA is overturned - do I get to now grieve and file suit against you or anyone else that now refuses to pay for insurance and then gets sick? I'll be first in line if that was doable. After all, you said I should get to grieve and get redress - so maybe I should file now against you people that refuse to purchase insurance. Live in a nice house? I'll take it. Nice car? keep up the payments, I'll just drive off in your car. After all, an xbox, car, house, video game is more important to you people than actual good health. And if you have children, I would even claim child abuse, playing games while your child goes from a simple sneeze to hospitalization and respiratory infections. I guess people shouldn't be allowed to have children unless they are able to care for their kids. Not having insurance when you can afford it should be grounds for no marriage and no children - mandatory birth control, perhaps?

Dear Sneekin
A. RE: changing laws that are in full force and effect
* Slavery laws were also in full effect and enforced by courts, treating people as property.
The cases that went through court found in favor of enforcing laws requiring that
slaves be returned to their owners as property.
* Segregation laws were also enforced to the point people went to jail over them.

So your argument based on laws being in full force
doesn't mean that laws CAN'T change.

You are just concerned that I go through the process.
I understand that.

B.
What I am trying to do BEFORE going through the FORMAL process
is reach an agreement in advance, where we get the terms and conditions straight
so we PROCEED in the SAME direction toward mutually agreed CORRECTIONS --
NOT COMPETING "AT ODDS" WITH EACH OTHER WHICH WASTES ENERGY ON BOTH SIDES.
(If you are going to push a car out of the ditch, you agree first to get behind the same side
and push in the SAME direction, not face each other from opposites and push or you get nowhere!)

BEFORE people pushed to abolish slavery, or they fought against segregation laws,
they reached AGREEMENT WITH EACH OTHER
* that the laws needed to be challenged
* what steps to take to push for change

We are still arguing if the laws are unconstitutional or not!
So we haven't even gotten past ground zero!
I'm not going to recommend to push ANY solution through Courts or Congress
if people don't even agree what the solution is yet, that's a waste of time!!!
if we AGREE in advance what we want to change ACA to,
then we can work TOGETHER to go through the process of reforming it!!!

C. The REASON this issue of constitutionality is important to resolve:

If we DON'T learn to RECOGNIZE and manage the differences in our beliefs
"about what is constitutional or unconstitutional"
we will KEEP overstepping the SAME BOUNDS
and cause SIMILAR conflicts over and over.

The SAME biases that prevent us from AGREEING what is
constitutional or not IN THIS CASE, are going to cause SIMILAR situations
with the next law and the next, IF WE DON'T FIGURE OUT
WHERE WE AREN'T RESPECTING EACH OTHER'S BOUNDS.

D. As for the process of changing them, now the fastest way
may be for Congress to repeal or revise ACA.

What I understand is up for consideration is giving people who depend on coverage under it
a transition period such as 2 years to whatever is going to replace the ACA where it doesn't have mandates.

 

[emilynghiem]

Emily Said:

Sneekin
Insurance is not the only way to cover health care costs
and clearly other ways are still needed.

So why PENALIZE those other choices and say insurance (or religious health share ministries or federal exchanges)
are the ONLY way to avoid a fine?

You just said you didn't want spiritual healing involved as a choice.
But if you are penalizing it because it's not one of the govt endorsed choices,
you are EXCLUDING that choice. AND imposing insurance as the ONLY WAY???

Aren't you penalizing people for wanting other choices
that are equally valid?

What's wrong with someone
paying all their costs *with or without insurance*
and building a charity hospital and medical program to help others with costs NOT COVERED by govt or insurance!

Why is THAT option FINED BY GOVT AS NOT A CHOICE.

Just because it doesn't involve paying for insurance?

Sneekin Said:
Really? Those other ways are what? If you have no insurance, and you have cancer, heart attack, need major surgery, transplants, etc, explain how you think the average person will pay for these WITHOUT insurance. The average income is between 40 and 48K. A heart transplant will cost more than you will make in a year.

Why say (your second paragraph)? Because that is the law.....BTW, federal exchanges ARE INSURANCE. If you open a book, and compare the definition of religious health share ministries and exchanges and health insurance, they are the same thing, conceptually.

OMG - Spiritual healing IS ILLEGAL under the federal exchanges, as well as conventional health insurance. You can have spiritual healing under RHSM, but RHSM also has to meet all the ACA criteria - why can't you understand that? You can have ADDITIONAL choices - but you fail to grasp that there are guidelines that must be followed - THEY ARE LAW.

Nothing is wrong with paying all of your costs - provided you can demonstrate you can come up with the money. Most people cannot. Can you afford to pay for a cancer surgery, with chemotherapy, along with two knee replacements, and similar for your husband? Why the hell do you think people have insurance to begin with? Because MOST PEOPLE CAN'T AFFORD TO PAY ALL OF THEIR MEDICAL BILLS.

Why must you ask (we are up to probably 15 times now) why establishment of a state religion isn't a choice/ok/legal? It's the FIRST AMENDMENT that makes it illegal for INSURANCE/FEDERAL EXCHANGE. Off topic. Last time I answer you on this subject.[/QUOTE]

Dear Sneekin:
0. If you want to require insurance as a condition for YOU to pay for health care that's fine.
But not everyone agrees to that condition.
Some people would rather have the freedom rather than save the costs you think are more important!

Same with the freedom to choose spiritual healing that would also save costs.
Since clearly the govt cannot require that people go through spiritual healing,
that's why I recommend a separate PRIVATE system if people believe in that!

1. RE: alternatives to pay for health care where insurance remains optional
I have proposed to fellow Democrats to reform the prison and mental health systems,
converting these to medical programs and teaching hospitals
that combine medical education and training of service providers
with internships in public health and social services, so that the same resources
we are already spending (running a FAILED system of prisons and mental health)
can ALREADY pay for preventative health care and general medical services
by running these EFFICIENTLY.*

* [You are new to this idea of spiritual healing curing costly diseases,
but the resources I recommend for further medical R&D have 35-40 years
of working WITH medical science, not in opposition,
to save lives, health, and resources by diagnosing and curing the root cause of
a wide range of ills, from cancer and diabetes to schizophrenia, drug abuse
and other addictions, including criminal illnesses, that otherwise fill our prisons
and cost taxpayers billions per state]

For catastrophic, sure, there can be insurance and emergency funds for extreme cases.

But if we focus on the RIGHT type of cost saving measures,
then we have plenty of resources to invest in developing
campus facilities in EVERY DISTRICT that would ensure access
to clinics and hospitals.

Why not invest resources in creating the actual
FACILITIES and SERVICE PROVIDERS.

People can buy insurance by free choice, it doesn't have to be forced by law
unless you want to require it for whatever system you want to pay for.

2. In general I am not arguing with you where insurance can help cover costs.
I'm saying the federal govt cannot require people to buy it.*
If you want to pay costs yourself, that is your choice.
Just like people would rather pay for large houses on the water front,
where it costs more, especially when hurricanes hit and wipe out whole coastlines,
or cars that get less gas mileage per gallon.

* Now if YOU don't believe in paying for health care of others
without this condition of insurance, YES, I support you in demanding that condition!

So if we don't agree on terms, that's where I am saying
we should have choices of separate policies:
* people who agree that mandated insurance is required for your plan
sign up and fund that one, and agree to the same terms of membership
* people who only want to pay for everyone to go through spiritual healing
can be under that plan
* people who want free market and charity with NO conditions can pay for that plan
etc.

 

[Sneekin]

Dear Sneekin

A. Representatives represent me when these issues are resolved.
They are not getting represented yet, sorry!
Yes, I will go through govt to resolve them
but I have to be able to EXPLAIN them first.

I posted the letter to Ted Cruz office outlining even 3 of the grievances
that can be documented: http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10952408/

This has been going on until I find the PEOPLE to REDRESS those grievances.
[Of the people I've found who respect what it takes to represent me, most of
them are OUTSIDE GOVT. We have to form teams to connect with people
INSIDE govt to create the process that WILL represent these issues for resolution purposes!]

Not everyone can deal with this. And the ones who can are NOT ALL in govt positions!

Thanks for trying but it takes SPECIFIC people.
And then I can form a team with Congresswoman Lee to resolve these issues.
And if we can do it FT, we can use that same model for other issues
that HAVEN'T BEEN RESOLVED using the given legal or govt system as is.

B. So in general
NO the system of redressing grievances by assessing restitution owed
and crediting the taxmoney back to taxpayers
HASN'T BEEN IMPLEMENTED YET

I am teaming up with Jon Roland of the Libertarians and Constitution Society in Austin
and Ted Weisgal with the Diversity outreach of KPFT public radio
to try to organize some kind of party representation that can redress grievances.

The PROCESS that WOULD represent me in protecting the right
to petition to redress grievances by consensus and noncoercion
as the standard HASN'T BEEN proposed, offered or applied yet.

Thank you for helping to sort out the preliminary prep part.

At some point I will reach out to all law schools especially
anyone teaching Constitutional laws and ethics, to join the effort.

If it is really based on Consensus and Inclusion then everyone
will be able to use it to resolve their issues locally or nationally,

Thanks!

Emily,
I don't think you grasp how government works. Your representatives are elected, then they represent you. Even using your example - we need some way for people like you, who opt out of health insurance, to quit bankrupting the rest of us - we used a republican plan, the ACA, written by the Heritage think tank in the mid 90's. Romney implemented it, Obama implemented it, after a majority of Congress APPROVED it. You can't explain it, because I think you don't grasp the facts. They represented you. PP/ACA was implemented it, even though you don't like it. Like it or not, you were represented. Your next step is to contact your representatives, and see what can be done to shift the burden of paying for the lazy people (people who work who don't care that they rip the rest of us off). One will assume under the Trump regime, it will be overturned, and the rest of us will push to make sure if you don't pay for insurance because you just don't want to, can now be denied no matter what your health issues are. The majority of health care dollars are going against deadbeats who work and refuse to pay for coverage, and those that sign up for insurance weeks before a major surgery.

If you are banking on Cruz, that will be even a bigger joke.

While I can agree with you in part in concept only, the fact is, cheap people like you ruin it for the rest of us. My birth mother died in her mid 30's from a lung disease. It was in the early days of health insurance, but my father made sure insurance was paid before groceries were bought - which was good. My mother had congestive heart failure, treatment for TB, a double masectomy, all before the age of 35. She was being treated for TB, treated in a trial with a drug that was hailed as a cure - unfortunately, she was allergic to the (now commonplace) and went into Anaphylactic shock. She ended up on oxygen, filling up with fluid, and died days later. So......even then, costs were thousands of dollars. Nowadays, costs would be probably half a million. Insurance? Would pay for it. You refuse insurance? You expect ME to pay for it? That's NOT a viable solution, Emily.

Good luck grieving a law that's in full force and effect. That's really funny, since we grieve and arbitrate perceptions / conclusions that laws have been violated. The ACA is LAW. Good luck. We, the people don't get to grieve every dreamed up misconception we have. There are checks and balances. And if the ACA is overturned - do I get to now grieve and file suit against you or anyone else that now refuses to pay for insurance and then gets sick? I'll be first in line if that was doable. After all, you said I should get to grieve and get redress - so maybe I should file now against you people that refuse to purchase insurance. Live in a nice house? I'll take it. Nice car? keep up the payments, I'll just drive off in your car. After all, an xbox, car, house, video game is more important to you people than actual good health. And if you have children, I would even claim child abuse, playing games while your child goes from a simple sneeze to hospitalization and respiratory infections. I guess people shouldn't be allowed to have children unless they are able to care for their kids. Not having insurance when you can afford it should be grounds for no marriage and no children - mandatory birth control, perhaps?

Dear Sneekin
A. RE: changing laws that are in full force and effect
* Slavery laws were also in full effect and enforced by courts, treating people as property.
The cases that went through court found in favor of enforcing laws requiring that
slaves be returned to their owners as property.
* Segregation laws were also enforced to the point people went to jail over them.

So your argument based on laws being in full force
doesn't mean that laws CAN'T change.

You are just concerned that I go through the process.
I understand that.

B.
What I am trying to do BEFORE going through the FORMAL process
is reach an agreement in advance, where we get the terms and conditions straight
so we PROCEED in the SAME direction toward mutually agreed CORRECTIONS --
NOT COMPETING "AT ODDS" WITH EACH OTHER WHICH WASTES ENERGY ON BOTH SIDES.
(If you are going to push a car out of the ditch, you agree first to get behind the same side
and push in the SAME direction, not face each other from opposites and push or you get nowhere!)

BEFORE people pushed to abolish slavery, or they fought against segregation laws,
they reached AGREEMENT WITH EACH OTHER
* that the laws needed to be challenged
* what steps to take to push for change

We are still arguing if the laws are unconstitutional or not!
So we haven't even gotten past ground zero!
I'm not going to recommend to push ANY solution through Courts or Congress
if people don't even agree what the solution is yet, that's a waste of time!!!
if we AGREE in advance what we want to change ACA to,
then we can work TOGETHER to go through the process of reforming it!!!

C. The REASON this issue of constitutionality is important to resolve:

If we DON'T learn to RECOGNIZE and manage the differences in our beliefs
"about what is constitutional or unconstitutional"
we will KEEP overstepping the SAME BOUNDS
and cause SIMILAR conflicts over and over.

The SAME biases that prevent us from AGREEING what is
constitutional or not IN THIS CASE, are going to cause SIMILAR situations
with the next law and the next, IF WE DON'T FIGURE OUT
WHERE WE AREN'T RESPECTING EACH OTHER'S BOUNDS.

D. As for the process of changing them, now the fastest way
may be for Congress to repeal or revise ACA.

What I understand is up for consideration is giving people who depend on coverage under it
a transition period such as 2 years to whatever is going to replace the ACA where it doesn't have mandates.

OFF TOPIC - IGNORED.

 

[Sneekin]

Emily Said:

Sneekin
Insurance is not the only way to cover health care costs
and clearly other ways are still needed.

So why PENALIZE those other choices and say insurance (or religious health share ministries or federal exchanges)
are the ONLY way to avoid a fine?

You just said you didn't want spiritual healing involved as a choice.
But if you are penalizing it because it's not one of the govt endorsed choices,
you are EXCLUDING that choice. AND imposing insurance as the ONLY WAY???

Aren't you penalizing people for wanting other choices
that are equally valid?

What's wrong with someone
paying all their costs *with or without insurance*
and building a charity hospital and medical program to help others with costs NOT COVERED by govt or insurance!

Why is THAT option FINED BY GOVT AS NOT A CHOICE.

Just because it doesn't involve paying for insurance?

Sneekin Said:
Really? Those other ways are what? If you have no insurance, and you have cancer, heart attack, need major surgery, transplants, etc, explain how you think the average person will pay for these WITHOUT insurance. The average income is between 40 and 48K. A heart transplant will cost more than you will make in a year.

Why say (your second paragraph)? Because that is the law.....BTW, federal exchanges ARE INSURANCE. If you open a book, and compare the definition of religious health share ministries and exchanges and health insurance, they are the same thing, conceptually.

OMG - Spiritual healing IS ILLEGAL under the federal exchanges, as well as conventional health insurance. You can have spiritual healing under RHSM, but RHSM also has to meet all the ACA criteria - why can't you understand that? You can have ADDITIONAL choices - but you fail to grasp that there are guidelines that must be followed - THEY ARE LAW.

Nothing is wrong with paying all of your costs - provided you can demonstrate you can come up with the money. Most people cannot. Can you afford to pay for a cancer surgery, with chemotherapy, along with two knee replacements, and similar for your husband? Why the hell do you think people have insurance to begin with? Because MOST PEOPLE CAN'T AFFORD TO PAY ALL OF THEIR MEDICAL BILLS.

Why must you ask (we are up to probably 15 times now) why establishment of a state religion isn't a choice/ok/legal? It's the FIRST AMENDMENT that makes it illegal for INSURANCE/FEDERAL EXCHANGE. Off topic. Last time I answer you on this subject.

Dear Sneekin:
0. If you want to require insurance as a condition for YOU to pay for health care that's fine.
But not everyone agrees to that condition.
Some people would rather have the freedom rather than save the costs you think are more important!

Same with the freedom to choose spiritual healing that would also save costs.
Since clearly the govt cannot require that people go through spiritual healing,
that's why I recommend a separate PRIVATE system if people believe in that!

1. RE: alternatives to pay for health care where insurance remains optional
I have proposed to fellow Democrats to reform the prison and mental health systems,
converting these to medical programs and teaching hospitals
that combine medical education and training of service providers
with internships in public health and social services, so that the same resources
we are already spending (running a FAILED system of prisons and mental health)
can ALREADY pay for preventative health care and general medical services
by running these EFFICIENTLY.*

* [You are new to this idea of spiritual healing curing costly diseases,
but the resources I recommend for further medical R&D have 35-40 years
of working WITH medical science, not in opposition,
to save lives, health, and resources by diagnosing and curing the root cause of
a wide range of ills, from cancer and diabetes to schizophrenia, drug abuse
and other addictions, including criminal illnesses, that otherwise fill our prisons
and cost taxpayers billions per state]

For catastrophic, sure, there can be insurance and emergency funds for extreme cases.

But if we focus on the RIGHT type of cost saving measures,
then we have plenty of resources to invest in developing
campus facilities in EVERY DISTRICT that would ensure access
to clinics and hospitals.

Why not invest resources in creating the actual
FACILITIES and SERVICE PROVIDERS.

People can buy insurance by free choice, it doesn't have to be forced by law
unless you want to require it for whatever system you want to pay for.

2. In general I am not arguing with you where insurance can help cover costs.
I'm saying the federal govt cannot require people to buy it.*
If you want to pay costs yourself, that is your choice.
Just like people would rather pay for large houses on the water front,
where it costs more, especially when hurricanes hit and wipe out whole coastlines,
or cars that get less gas mileage per gallon.

* Now if YOU don't believe in paying for health care of others
without this condition of insurance, YES, I support you in demanding that condition!

So if we don't agree on terms, that's where I am saying
we should have choices of separate policies:
* people who agree that mandated insurance is required for your plan
sign up and fund that one, and agree to the same terms of membership
* people who only want to pay for everyone to go through spiritual healing
can be under that plan
* people who want free market and charity with NO conditions can pay for that plan
etc.[/QUOTE]
OFF TOPIC - IGNORED.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

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

yes but overturned because the Constitution did not contemplate gay marriage any more than it contemplated triad marriage or human/animal marriage.

 

[Sneekin]

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

yes but overturned because the Constitution did not contemplate gay marriage any more than it contemplated triad marriage or human/animal marriage.

So, EdwardBaiamonte and Independant Ace, one has to assume this "Amendment" will, in the name of equal protection and due process, also overturn interracial marriage, and heterosexual marriage? Oh yes, also Christian Marriage as well, right? Do you boys know the amount of time it would take to put an amendment through? We will more than likely be on a new president. We've only passed 27 amendments since inception (the first 10 became the bill of rights (articles 3-12). Based on the WHY we had the Obergefell decision (rather than hearing every state separately, it impacted the remaining few in a single decision. Please explain how you think states will be able to ban SSM, etc, as we all know what happened in Loving v Virginia - states cannot legislate discrimination into their constitutions. Obergefell and Windsor rulings impacted the states, they all must recognize SSM performed by other states. The citizens of those states from 2015 on forward (or prior, depending on state) can file federal tax returns as valid married couple. I'm curious how you think a state could author an amendment that wouldn't be overturned at the State or Federal Level. Marriage can't be solely based at state level - there are 1138 rights granted, mostly at the federal level.

While Trump wants to drain the swamp - I guess having our congressmen try and author an amendment such as this would be a good way - considering close to 2/3 of the voters in the US are proponents of SSM.

 

[Sneekin]

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

yes but overturned because the Constitution did not contemplate gay marriage any more than it contemplated triad marriage or human/animal marriage.

Ace, you want to invalidate an entire group of people from being married because they can't reproduce? Are you going to fund the fertility tests that you must be advocating? You claim that no woman over 50-55 can get married, men that have had the snip or prostate cancer (which people in their 20's have gotten) will no longer get married either, heterosexuals included? You do realize that what you propose is unconstitutional. Read the last 1666 posts if you fail to grasp what I told you.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

this "Amendment" will, in the name of equal protection and due process, also overturn interracial marriage, and heterosexual marriage? .

overturn?? no, just admit it is not a mentioned or alluded to in Constitution. Do you understand?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Ace, you want to invalidate an entire group of people from being married because they can't reproduce? .

a liberal always lacks the IQ to understand. Not invalidate!!!! just have SCOTUS
recognize Constitution does not address marriage between gays, triads, siblings. Now do you understand?

 

[peabody]

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.

Ain't gonna happen. Liberals already won the battle over social issues, even after Trumps scotus pick is installed. The only thing that conservatives can change is that that relates to foreign policy and economics

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

. Liberals already won the battle over social issues,

Which is why we have 75% of black kids growing up in broken or never formed homes. Trump might appoint 2-4, perhaps enough to reintroduce civilized social values to America again.

 

[peabody]

. Liberals already won the battle over social issues,

Which is why we have 75% of black kids growing up in broken or never formed homes. Trump might appoint 2-4, perhaps enough to reintroduce civilized social values to America again.

Ain't gonna happen because millennials and the younger generation are not conservative and they are the future. Trump is the dying cry of an aging generation of conservatives. The future of America is liberal all the way.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Ain't gonna happen because millennials and the younger generation are not conservative and they are the future..

just like they said Trump could never be elected????? and it turned out Hilary had it backwards!

 

[peabody]

Ain't gonna happen because millennials and the younger generation are not conservative and they are the future..

just like they said Trump could never be elected????? and it turned out Hilary had it backwards!

Trump is the dying cry of an aging generation of conservatives. The future of America is liberal all the way.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Ain't gonna happen because millennials and the younger generation are not conservative and they are the future..

just like they said Trump could never be elected????? and it turned out Hilary had it backwards!

Trump is the dying cry of an aging generation of conservatives. The future of America is liberal all the way.

and somehow he's president and stock market is already breaking records after Barry had worst record since depression! At this point you'd predict midterms will increase Republican majority even more in all branches of Federal and State govt. Just keep parroting what the liberal media told you: Trump cant win!!!

 

[Syriusly]

Ain't gonna happen because millennials and the younger generation are not conservative and they are the future..

just like they said Trump could never be elected????? and it turned out Hilary had it backwards!

Trump is the dying cry of an aging generation of conservatives. The future of America is liberal all the way.

and somehow he's president and stock market is already breaking records after Barry had worst record since depression!

Hmmm the stock market under President Obama

I do hope that the stock market does as well under President Trump as it has under President Obama, because I have made lots of money in the last 8 years.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/21/y...the-best-of-times-to-be-a-stock-investor.html
Consider that had you been prescient enough to buy shares of a low-cost stock index fund on Mr. Obama’s first inauguration day, on Jan. 20, 2009, you would now have tripled your money. Stock market performance of this level has rarely been surpassed.

 

[Sneekin]

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

yes but overturned because the Constitution did not contemplate gay marriage any more than it contemplated triad marriage or human/animal marriage.

Poor Edward - not too bright, are you.

The Constitution must not have contemplated heterosexual marriage either, as it's not mentioned. Nor is divorce. You see, dear boy, we are a secular country.

That's your first problem. Your second is that you didn't bother reading the constitution, but instead, you blindly accepted the ramblings of some religious nut job that doesn't have a clue what the original text stated. You are aware that the word Homosexual wasn't in the Bible (Christian, non-Catholic version, known as the one TRUE Bible) until mid last century.

If 2/3 of Americans approve of SSM, how do you think you are going to pass an amendment which would allow it to take place? You still will have laws in place recognizing SSM marriage, for the 1138 benefits. So "splain" yourself. If you marry your SSM partner in Missouri, and move to Oklahoma, do you really think that Oklahoma doesn't have to recognize it? All you are doing is moving the location of the ceremony - except, dear boy, there is that SCOTUS ruling that says STATE AMENDMENTS BANNING SSM ARE ILLEGAL!

Oh yes, your comments regarding the Stock Market are wrong - not to mention, foolish boy, Obama is still President, not Trump. Syriusly summed it up perfectly - how's your stock portfolio doing? You might want to start diversifying now.....

Looking forward to what you think can be done.....I need a laugh.

 

[Sneekin]

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

yes but overturned because the Constitution did not contemplate gay marriage any more than it contemplated triad marriage or human/animal marriage.

Ed:

First of all, there is no such thing as triad marriage. Perhaps you refer to plural marriages, which is a requirement for statehood? Sorry, no need to have it in the constitution. No need for human/animal, either,. While you may not be as smart as a goat or cow or your animal of choice, even you should know basic contract law. Animals, like children, cannot give consent. What country did you say you are from? Everything you ramble on about was discounted during the time you were in primary school.

 

[Sneekin]

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.

Ain't gonna happen. Liberals already won the battle over social issues, even after Trumps scotus pick is installed. The only thing that conservatives can change is that that relates to foreign policy and economics

Not a liberal or conservative issue. 2/3 of the country advocate SSM. More than 70 percent of Democrats, and over 55 percent of Republicans. Nice try, though.

My mother died when I was 6. My stepmother raised our family. She was unable to have children, so according to him, they shouldn't be able to get married because she can't procreate - unlike SSM couples, who can use donor sperm or surrogates. He's even misinterpreting the 14th amendment when it comes to separate but equal, as well. It doesn't just apply to race - it applies to sex, age, national origin, religion, skin color as well. And EEOC's last ruling stated that discrimination based on sexual preference was the same as discrimination based on sex - where a man or a woman doesn't match the preconceived notions of male/female.