Gay marriage is not a constitutional right

[Sneekin]

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!

You mean that he one the electoral college vote....only he hasn't yet. They don't meet for a week or so. Hillary won the popular vote by 2.5 Million votes. No one said Trump is going to stay president - I look for him to be out sooner than later. Although he's much better than Pence would ever be.

 

[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

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.

Please don't make shit up.

Over 60 percent of Republicans oppose court on gay marriage: Reuters/Ipsos poll

The Pew Research Center survey, conducted May 12-18 among 2,002 adults, finds that partisans are as divided on this issue as ever: Today, 65% of Democrats and an identical percentage of independents favor gay marriage; only about one third (34%) of Republicans do so.

 

[Sneekin]

. 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.

Except that's another lie, Edward.

US CENSUS states:
1) 23.6% of US children (17.4 million) lived in father absent homes in 2014.
2) Using actual numbers, Whites have the most number of single family households, followed by black, then Hispanic, then Asian.
3) There are less Whites in America than the combined number of minorities, starting within the last few years.
4) There's this group of judges in Washington DC, called the SCOTUS. For Trump to appoint someone, there has to be a vacancy. Obama can do an end run and wait for Congress to go on break and appoint Scalia's replacement, otherwise, Trump can only NOMINATE (not appoint) 2-4. Congress has to approve the judges. After midterm elections, chances are Dems will take back congress, and further skew your statements.
5) The SCOTUS rules by point of law, NOT by religious fiat (hint: fiat = A sanction; decree. A legally binding command or decision). This is why Trump is saying Obergefell won't be overturned. It was just ruled on in 2015, and even if they replaced the entire court, they wouldn't overturn that decision.
6) What you claim to be civilized social values never existed. There were always single parent homes. There were always the poor, and there were always people like you that looked down their noses at them. Yet many of them went on to be great people (just like nowadays), and make 10 times the money you make - and would be more than happy now to ship YOUR job out of country or done by robots.
7. SS families have existed back in that golden era you claim was civilized social values. I grew up with a neighbor and her "maiden cousin" (lesbian girlfriend) raised her children (1 is a CEO, 1 is a doctor, all are doing better than you ever will); as are the grandchildren and great grandchildren. They have civilized social values that actually are civilized and social and don't monger fear or hatred.

 

[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.

Please don't make shit up.

Over 60 percent of Republicans oppose court on gay marriage: Reuters/Ipsos poll

The Pew Research Center survey, conducted May 12-18 among 2,002 adults, finds that partisans are as divided on this issue as ever: Today, 65% of Democrats and an identical percentage of independents favor gay marriage; only about one third (34%) of Republicans do so.

I'm not. PRC is a conservative think tank. 2002 is a low number. I've yet to see any poll showing republicans at 34 percent. What were the questions. I'm not making things up, you are taking a single poll out of context. Look at the NYT, WSJ, CNN, and on and on. Still makes no difference, my mathematically challenged friend, because when you use real numbers using the real question, it shows that MORE advocate SSM than are against it. So what is your point? Gallup, back in 2013, when only 26 percent of republicans approved, showed a combined percentage of 53 percent. In 3 years time, the number of Democrats when up from 69 pecent to 75 percent, and Republicans wen from 26 percent to 35 percent. Your generation is dying off. Millenials are coming up, where the numbers pro SSM marriage in 2013 were at 79 percent - and that number is in the mid 80 percentile now..... so you need to stop making "sh*t" up, and look at more than a single poll - which, we all know, is the rightmost leaning poll available. Hey - did you know that they also wrote the draft for the Affordable Care Act, or did you forget that as well?

 

[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

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.

Please don't make shit up.

Over 60 percent of Republicans oppose court on gay marriage: Reuters/Ipsos poll

The Pew Research Center survey, conducted May 12-18 among 2,002 adults, finds that partisans are as divided on this issue as ever: Today, 65% of Democrats and an identical percentage of independents favor gay marriage; only about one third (34%) of Republicans do so.

I'm not. PRC is a conservative think tank. 2002 is a low number. I've yet to see any poll showing republicans at 34 percent. What were the questions. I'm not making things up, you are taking a single poll out of context. Look at the NYT, WSJ, CNN, and on and on. Still makes no difference, my mathematically challenged friend, because when you use real numbers using the real question, it shows that MORE advocate SSM than are against it. So what is your point? Gallup, back in 2013, when only 26 percent of republicans approved, showed a combined percentage of 53 percent. In 3 years time, the number of Democrats when up from 69 pecent to 75 percent, and Republicans wen from 26 percent to 35 percent. Your generation is dying off. Millenials are coming up, where the numbers pro SSM marriage in 2013 were at 79 percent - and that number is in the mid 80 percentile now..... so you need to stop making "sh*t" up, and look at more than a single poll - which, we all know, is the rightmost leaning poll available. Hey - did you know that they also wrote the draft for the Affordable Care Act, or did you forget that as well?

I'm sorry. I was wrong and I would like to take the time out now to apologize for my misinformed post.

 

[emilynghiem]

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.

Hi Sneekin sorry I got behind reading, thanking and responding to all your messages
which I don't want you to think are going underappreciated!
I will struggle to catch up with you, but think this is GREAT and well worth the effort on both our part.
THANK YOU and I will go back and give you all the credit, thanks, info's etc you deserve for spelling all this out
so we can work this out in detail comprehensively.

Can I start with this one point about Heritage Foundation
[and secondary point about RFRA vs Constitutional religious freedom in general]

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.

A. No, this Heritage Argument was debunked
1. the insurance was for CATASTROPHIC ONLY
IT WAS NEVER INTENDED FOR FED GOVT TO MICROMANAGE ALL HEALTH CARE COMPREHENSIVELY
WHICH VIOLATES THE BELIEFS OF CONSERVATIVES IN LIMITED GOVT!!

We both know Conservatives are OPPOSED to federal govt interfering with personal finances and health care.
They have CONSISTENTLY screamed against anything risking the path of SOCIALISM and still prefer to change to PRIVATE.
That's been their stance opposing ANY govt welfare, health care, benefits etc.

2. Yo, earth to Sneekin, law professor:
PASSING LAWS ON A STATE LEVEL IS DIFFERENT FROM FEDERAL.
PEOPLE WHO ARGUE FOR STATES RIGHTS DISTINGUISH THIS ALL THE TIME FROM FEDERAL.
EX: They argue Marriage laws belong to States not to Federal govt!

Surely as a law professor, you know there is a HUGE different in jurisdiction
and decisions/representation between State laws and Federal laws.

3. And NO CONSERVATIVE in Congress had PASSED that mandate
BECAUSE IT VIOLATES CONSERVATIVE AND CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLES!

It only passed when DEMOCRATS in Congress voted for it.

It FAILED when Conservatives vote for it because it goes against Constitutional beliefs that CONSERVATIVES BELIEVE IN
ie in limited federal govt that has NO authority to DEPRIVE citizens of liberty
(for health care benefits or other social programs that don't justify a compelling interest
because of conservative beliefs that private sector and free market can meet those demands better than govt).

At most the CONSERVATIVES would argue that a Constitutional Amendment
would need to be passed by the given process if federal govt and Constitution
is to be EXPANDED to include
* right to marriage
* right to health care

So NO Sneekin, conservatives do not support or endorse ANY
of what you are ascribing to them because it violates their own beliefs.

You would have better luck arguing that Democrats passed laws
violated their own prochoice principles (of not letting govt interfere with personal choices
but penalizing them), rather than saying Republicans passed or approved ANY SUCH
LAWS that violate their Constitutional beliefs in keeping social and health benefits apart from federal govt!

Thanks Sneekin

I wish it were that simple, but Conservatives have consistently
rejected growing more federal programs that make people more and more
dependent and lose their ability to check govt because of these conflicting interests
where govt starts controlling people instead of people having all the leverage.

 

[emilynghiem]

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.

Hi Sneekin sorry I got behind reading, thanking and responding to all your messages
which I don't want you to think are going underappreciated!
I will struggle to catch up with you, but think this is GREAT and well worth the effort on both our part.
THANK YOU and I will go back and give you all the credit, thanks, info's etc you deserve for spelling all this out
so we can work this out in detail comprehensively.

Can I start with this one point about Heritage Foundation
[and secondary point about RFRA vs Constitutional religious freedom in general]

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.

A. No, this Heritage Argument was debunked
1. the insurance was for CATASTROPHIC ONLY
IT WAS NEVER INTENDED FOR FED GOVT TO MICROMANAGE ALL HEALTH CARE COMPREHENSIVELY
WHICH VIOLATES THE BELIEFS OF CONSERVATIVES IN LIMITED GOVT!!

We both know Conservatives are OPPOSED to federal govt interfering with personal finances and health care.
They have CONSISTENTLY screamed against anything risking the path of SOCIALISM and still prefer to change to PRIVATE.
That's been their stance opposing ANY govt welfare, health care, benefits etc.

2. Yo, earth to Sneekin, law professor:
PASSING LAWS ON A STATE LEVEL IS DIFFERENT FROM FEDERAL.
PEOPLE WHO ARGUE FOR STATES RIGHTS DISTINGUISH THIS ALL THE TIME FROM FEDERAL.
EX: They argue Marriage laws belong to States not to Federal govt!

Surely as a law professor, you know there is a HUGE different in jurisdiction
and decisions/representation between State laws and Federal laws.

3. And NO CONSERVATIVE in Congress had PASSED that mandate
BECAUSE IT VIOLATES CONSERVATIVE AND CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLES!

It only passed when DEMOCRATS in Congress voted for it.

It FAILED when Conservatives vote for it because it goes against Constitutional beliefs that CONSERVATIVES BELIEVE IN
ie in limited federal govt that has NO authority to DEPRIVE citizens of liberty
(for health care benefits or other social programs that don't justify a compelling interest
because of conservative beliefs that private sector and free market can meet those demands better than govt).

At most the CONSERVATIVES would argue that a Constitutional Amendment
would need to be passed by the given process if federal govt and Constitution
is to be EXPANDED to include
* right to marriage
* right to health care

So NO Sneekin, conservatives do not support or endorse ANY
of what you are ascribing to them because it violates their own beliefs.

You would have better luck arguing that Democrats passed laws
violated their own prochoice principles (of not letting govt interfere with personal choices
but penalizing them), rather than saying Republicans passed or approved ANY SUCH
LAWS that violate their Constitutional beliefs in keeping social and health benefits apart from federal govt!

Thanks Sneekin

I wish it were that simple, but Conservatives have consistently
rejected growing more federal programs that make people more and more
dependent and lose their ability to check govt because of these conflicting interests
where govt starts controlling people instead of people having all the leverage.

P.S. here's the best explanation I found online as to why Conservatives
supported something DIFFERENT and not the federal mandate in ACA that overreached too far
where they argued it was unconstitutional:
No, Obamacare Wasn't a "Republican" Proposal

Someone else disagrees and argues more like you as posted on Reddit:
"I read this article the other day, and while it does highlight significant differences between the original Heritage Foundation proposal and the PPACA, the individual mandate (i.e. the subject of your post) was definitely in the Heritage proposal.

The argument for the similarity between the two plans depends on their one shared attribute: both contained a "mandate" requiring people to carry insurance coverage.
That said, the article also goes on to say the individual mandate idea has been around for much longer

Several other countries (including Switzerland, the Netherlands, and Germany) have compulsory insurance requirements without single-payer or socialized systems."

A. Just because people propose it doesn't mean they approve it as constitutional.
which is why it always got shot down before, it contradicts itself.
The conservatives who believe in prolife also get shot down by other conservatives
who argue for Constitutional religious freedom and limited govt not allowed to interfere and regulate private choices.
DOMA was pushed by conservatives, but shot down because it is unconstitutional.
Targeting Muslims is pushed by conservatives, but shot down because it is unconstitutional.

So what matters is what is found to be unconstitutional, regardless if it is proposed by conservatives.
That doesn't justify pushing it on them, especially where others disagree and argue it is unconstitutional.

B. just because people consent to ONE thing doesn't justify imposing another.
I would compare your argument to marriage, that if a couple agrees to sexual relations,
that doesn't give the right of either one to rape or force the other into sex!

So just because one partner proposes marriage first, does NOT give the
other partner the right to VIOLATE THEIR CONSENT and "claim they consented when they
proposed or agreed to marriage"!

Sneekin
so for the secondary point
NO it's not RFRA that makes it right or wrong, because that would be unnecessary anyway if people enforced the First Amendment/religious freedom and 14th Amendment consistently to begin with.

What causes THESE type of laws to be rejected is the fact they impose
on people's beliefs in the first place.

This violates natural laws on human free will and desire for self-determination
expressed as "consent of the governed" or "no taxation without representation."
If people find they are not equally represented, they will fight to change or remove the bias causing that problem.

This is human nature and the cycle of democratic process, to object petition and reform
laws through the given system.

So that process is REFLECTED in the First Amendment, and other
Constitutional principles on due process and equal protection of the laws.

And then in addition to that, people passed RFRA and Civil rights laws
to try to further define and delineate areas they wanted to protect from infringements
and discrimination more specifically.

We would not need these additional laws if people respected
equal religious freedom for everyone equally to begin with!

RFRA would not even be necessary.
What matters is if PEOPLE AGREE to respect each other's equal freedom and beliefs!

If so, we would naturally fulfill and enforce the principles in the
First and Fourteenth Amendments directly by our actions.

 

[emilynghiem]

* 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.

OFF TOPIC - IGNORED.[/QUOTE]

^ ????
Dear Sneekin
how is this off topic when it is the KEY to differences causes biases?
If people BELIEVE in free market and PRIVATE SECTOR choices and
DON'T BELIEVE federal govt has the authority to deprive
citizens of liberty without due process OR PENALIZE FOR THESE BELIEFS,
then that's the key to resolving why people don't agree to
* ACA mandates
* to TERMS of marriage laws and health care/social programs and policies

Do you want to address this in a separate thread?
The underlying CORE difference in thinking
between people who believe in going through govt for these things
and people who do not?

The same conflict is going to arise OVER and OVER
as the fundamental core difference in beliefs.
So we might as well address this head on!
is that a separate topic?

 

[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.

Hi Sneekin sorry I got behind reading, thanking and responding to all your messages
which I don't want you to think are going underappreciated!
I will struggle to catch up with you, but think this is GREAT and well worth the effort on both our part.
THANK YOU and I will go back and give you all the credit, thanks, info's etc you deserve for spelling all this out
so we can work this out in detail comprehensively.

Can I start with this one point about Heritage Foundation
[and secondary point about RFRA vs Constitutional religious freedom in general]

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.

A. No, this Heritage Argument was debunked
1. the insurance was for CATASTROPHIC ONLY
IT WAS NEVER INTENDED FOR FED GOVT TO MICROMANAGE ALL HEALTH CARE COMPREHENSIVELY
WHICH VIOLATES THE BELIEFS OF CONSERVATIVES IN LIMITED GOVT!!

We both know Conservatives are OPPOSED to federal govt interfering with personal finances and health care.
They have CONSISTENTLY screamed against anything risking the path of SOCIALISM and still prefer to change to PRIVATE.
That's been their stance opposing ANY govt welfare, health care, benefits etc.

2. Yo, earth to Sneekin, law professor:
PASSING LAWS ON A STATE LEVEL IS DIFFERENT FROM FEDERAL.
PEOPLE WHO ARGUE FOR STATES RIGHTS DISTINGUISH THIS ALL THE TIME FROM FEDERAL.
EX: They argue Marriage laws belong to States not to Federal govt!

Surely as a law professor, you know there is a HUGE different in jurisdiction
and decisions/representation between State laws and Federal laws.

3. And NO CONSERVATIVE in Congress had PASSED that mandate
BECAUSE IT VIOLATES CONSERVATIVE AND CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLES!

It only passed when DEMOCRATS in Congress voted for it.

It FAILED when Conservatives vote for it because it goes against Constitutional beliefs that CONSERVATIVES BELIEVE IN
ie in limited federal govt that has NO authority to DEPRIVE citizens of liberty
(for health care benefits or other social programs that don't justify a compelling interest
because of conservative beliefs that private sector and free market can meet those demands better than govt).

At most the CONSERVATIVES would argue that a Constitutional Amendment
would need to be passed by the given process if federal govt and Constitution
is to be EXPANDED to include
* right to marriage
* right to health care

So NO Sneekin, conservatives do not support or endorse ANY
of what you are ascribing to them because it violates their own beliefs.

You would have better luck arguing that Democrats passed laws
violated their own prochoice principles (of not letting govt interfere with personal choices
but penalizing them), rather than saying Republicans passed or approved ANY SUCH
LAWS that violate their Constitutional beliefs in keeping social and health benefits apart from federal govt!

Thanks Sneekin

I wish it were that simple, but Conservatives have consistently
rejected growing more federal programs that make people more and more
dependent and lose their ability to check govt because of these conflicting interests
where govt starts controlling people instead of people having all the leverage.

Emily:

1. The Heritage Foundation was written specifically back in the 1990's when Hillary was working on her "wife of the president" Single Payer Health Care proposal. The Heritage Foundation wrote this for the entire country, and proposed using insurance plans throughout the US (the ability to buy across state lines). This is pretty common knowledge to those who were focused on Obama and his proposed health care plan. Republicans at the time were worried that the public would go for a single payer system, so they funded the Heritage Foundation in an attempt to counteract Hillary's proposal. Hillary's plan died on the vine when republicans took over congress, and the Heritage plan was shelved, until Romney dredged it up, and implemented it after tweaking the proposal to be a single state system. Obama dusted it off, tweaked it back, and gave it to congressional committees to tweak. As republicans were also on the committee, one knows it didn't violate their constitutions.

Paul Ryan, speaker of the House, works with social programs. to say it's against his beliefs is laughable. Paul and Mitch are against social programs that don't help people of their own personal states only. Same with health care. It's been proven over and over that health care is cheaper when spread over the population, rather than taxing the democrats when the lazy and ignorant republicans refuse to pay for insurance, practice gluttony, and need expensive surgeries - when all could have been avoided with a simple drug, like Lipitor, or a simple ace inhibitor - which combined costs to the citizenry is only a few cents per month. Single payer health care has even more savings. Check it out.

2. There are more republicans on public aid and disability than democrats, so what you claim is totally wrong. The poor (republicans) voted for Trump. Last time I looked, he's a republican.

I really wish you'd learn how government works. And you still can't pass a constitutional amendment for the reasons you claim.

 

[Sneekin]

* 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.

OFF TOPIC - IGNORED.

^ ????
Dear Sneekin
how is this off topic when it is the KEY to differences causes biases?
If people BELIEVE in free market and PRIVATE SECTOR choices and
DON'T BELIEVE federal govt has the authority to deprive
citizens of liberty without due process OR PENALIZE FOR THESE BELIEFS,
then that's the key to resolving why people don't agree to
* ACA mandates
* to TERMS of marriage laws and health care/social programs and policies

Do you want to address this in a separate thread?
The underlying CORE difference in thinking
between people who believe in going through govt for these things
and people who do not?

The same conflict is going to arise OVER and OVER
as the fundamental core difference in beliefs.
So we might as well address this head on!
is that a separate topic?[/QUOTE]
It's off topic because this is about gay marraige, not health care. You can claim it violates your liberty without due process, you can claim you are penalized for your beliefs, but based on the ruling of the SCOTUS, they have decided what you claim is WRONG, and it most certainly IS constitutional. It needs to be a separate thread, but why bother? Cruz claims it's going to be gone within the first days after Trump takes office - why waste our time?

 

[emilynghiem]

Republicans are against freedom. That most of them are against gay marriage makes it a fact.

No WheelieAddict
Are you going to say that not wanting to legislate God and Christianity through govt
means being antiChristian and antiGod?

Just because conservatives resist govt making decisions that belong to people
doesn't make them AGAINST those things!

the REAL conservatives and Constitutionalists want LIMITED govt
and MAXIMUM power to the people instead of being overregulated.

As for which party is against freedom,
the Democrats are argued as being more "antichoice"
if they are
AGAINST the free choice of how to pay for health care,
AGAINST the free choice to bear arms and to interpret the law as
recognizing right of people without requiring membership in a militia,
AGAINST the free choice of reparative therapy and the inclusion of
exgays and other people who believe in changing orientation.

If that's what you want, vote progressive. Republicans grow government, spend more, and rob from the poor and give tax breaks to the rich. Republicans also want to legislate God and Christianity throughout government.

Just because Democrats/Progressives want to uphold the first amendment doesn't make them anti Christian or God.

Conservatives make decisions that impact people, mainly the poor. They are against Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, Welfare, Section 8, SNAp, etc. They are ON RECORD for being against the programs.

Democrats do not argue about free choice to pay for health care - at no time did Obama direct it not be free choice. In fact, quite the opposite, as the majority of the people with health insurance are paying out of their free choice. The extreme poor (until Texas law passed) get Medicaid, IF THEY CHOOSE. As does the middle class and upper class. You are talking under 15 percent that utilizes the exchanges (as a half to, in lieu of alternative sources).
Democrats are not against the right to bear arms. And even the great Idol, Scalia, says that the second amendment is not an unlimited right. You can't have certain weapons. If you are a felon, no weapons and so on. I'm not aware of anyone that doesn't interpret existing law as saying MOST (not all) people have a right to bear arms.
You need to pull your head out and read up on what really happens with conversion therapy. The fact that you think there is such a thing as an ex-gay just demonstrates nothing more than stupidity (refusal to accept, versus simply being ignorant (uninformed)). Sexual Orientation CANNOT change. It can only be repressed. You are a Christian. Just because I tell you that you are a Catholic doesn't make you one. Same with conversion therapy. It's never worked, and if you knew anyone that IS GAY that has experienced Conversion therapy, they will tell you they are STILL GAY, they are repressing their sexual urges. Sex act is not the same as sexual orientation. I'm sorry you refuse to understand it, and I'm sorry you have no friends having experienced it, but I've had friends of my daughters that have suicided after therapy. Others have become wildly promiscuous (same sex) Some have married opposite sex spouses, and to this day sneak around on their spouses and having sex on the down low. Until you grasp the difference between the sex act and what sexual preference is, you should drop the subject. I can send you to Lesbian conversion therapy - and possibly you can be "converted" - that is, you might be able to have sex with another female. Does that make you a lesbian? NO. Will you still have sex with your opposite sex spouse? Most definitely.

^ Dear Sneekin what part of MANDATES and FINES are you saying are free choice?
the cheapest route for me to avoid being under fines/mandates I never agreed to was
to pay or owe 45 a month for membership in a Christian health shares ministry.

So basically the Federal Govt REQUIRED me to either
* pay for insurance I couldn't afford,
* register for an exchange I don't believe in (the very least intrusion on my civil liberties
being to apply for domestic abuse exception where I do consider this depriving me of my income
and exercise of my liberties without any due process to prove I committed a crime or abuse)
* or PAY to join a RELIGIOUS organization that exempts me from penalty

How is any of THAT "free choice" to pay and provide health care through charities and medical programs
I deem more cost effective and sustainable?

Sneekin I USED to have free choice without penalties,
but now I am restricted to only the choices above until state alternatives are set up.

And the CHEAPEST choice even requires JOINING A FAITH BASED GROUP
AND PAYING FOR MEMBERSHIP.

Why aren't you offended by that ^ as a VIOLATION where govt is REGULATING
exemptions based on PAID MEMBERSHIP IN APPROVED RELIGIOUS GROUPS!!!

BTW here is the DOJ definition of domestic abuse I would ask to use for an exemption:

Domestic Violence | OVW | Department of Justice

Economic Abuse: Is defined as making or attempting to make an individual financially dependent by maintaining total control over financial resources, withholding one's access to money, or forbidding one's attendance at school or employment.

I have been begging for help to get out from under MANDATES I never agreed to because these violate my beliefs and free choice without due process of laws and representation,
and equal protection of my beliefs in rights of people and states that weren't changed by an amendment to the Constitution to authorize govt to impose mandates on health care.

If you teach law in a school where you can ask other profs or students to research this,
I would love to find a law firm or lawyer to petition to fix this mess!

This post is offensive. For you to belittle and ridicule domestic abuse......I hope you are never in need of any resources. To answer your question, you can't get an exemption from DV. No one is withholding your money. You could go self insured, and not costs you a cent, provided your business has the resources to cover expenses.
Mandate: the authority to carry out a policy or course of action, regarded as given by the electorate to a candidate or party that is victorious in an election: You elect people, they voted contrary to what you wanted. I believe that falls in the too bad too sad pile. You'll need to "drain the swamp" and get new people in from Texas. Otherwise, it's the definition of insanity - repeating the same mistakes over and over again and expecting different results

Dear Sneekin

1. the way to STOP repeating these mistakes is to respect people's CONSENT to begin with.
E X A C T L Y ! Bingo!
This would stop ALL MANNER of abuse, bullying coercion by respecting peopel's free will and consent instead of overruling and overriding it.

2. and yes I have been victimized by one of the worst
forms of relationship abuse, by being FORCED TO ABORT A BABY AGAINST MY WISHES MY BELIEFS AND INTENT!
My partner ìnsisted he would kill himself, if I even offered to have the baby and give it up for adoption.
He and others convinced me by bullying that this was someone all my responsibility and mistake
and my ONLY CHOICE was to abort the baby to prevent from imposing on anyone else who didn't want that responsibility.

So I've been through a TERRIBLE case of having my consent violated by complete coercion
until I felt no other choice to stop the constant harassment and bullying except to agree to an abortion!

Can you BELIEVE that???
I still cannot believe I went through that, but it happened to me

3. So you wonder why I am such an advocate for consent and against coercion.
I saw what it did to someone like me who was even forced to violate my own beliefs
and abort a baby I wanted. That's how horrible it is to me to see anyone else's consent violated.

So I say NO to going down that path.
No coercion, and if something is really right or wrong
you should be able to AGREE on it and take action by consent
(unless the person is mentally or criminally ill or disabled
in which case I support spiritual healing to ensure that
nobody's will is violated until the conflicts can be remedied)

I am seeking ways to stop ALL FORMS OF ABUSE OPPRESSION AND VICTIMIZATION
That come from violating consent of people.

So that's how I interpret 'free exercise of religion" to mean FREE WILL
which requires balancing and consensus among all people equally so nobody gets violated
as I went through because of other people's beliefs.

Been there, done that, it doesn't work to force people.
The best way to undo the damage to relations and obstructing
people from resolving conflicts is to respect CONSENT and include
all people so we don't lose time energy resources or relationships
bullying and forcing anything on anyone against their beliefs!

 

[Sneekin]

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.

Hi Sneekin sorry I got behind reading, thanking and responding to all your messages
which I don't want you to think are going underappreciated!
I will struggle to catch up with you, but think this is GREAT and well worth the effort on both our part.
THANK YOU and I will go back and give you all the credit, thanks, info's etc you deserve for spelling all this out
so we can work this out in detail comprehensively.

Can I start with this one point about Heritage Foundation
[and secondary point about RFRA vs Constitutional religious freedom in general]

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.

A. No, this Heritage Argument was debunked
1. the insurance was for CATASTROPHIC ONLY
IT WAS NEVER INTENDED FOR FED GOVT TO MICROMANAGE ALL HEALTH CARE COMPREHENSIVELY
WHICH VIOLATES THE BELIEFS OF CONSERVATIVES IN LIMITED GOVT!!

We both know Conservatives are OPPOSED to federal govt interfering with personal finances and health care.
They have CONSISTENTLY screamed against anything risking the path of SOCIALISM and still prefer to change to PRIVATE.
That's been their stance opposing ANY govt welfare, health care, benefits etc.

2. Yo, earth to Sneekin, law professor:
PASSING LAWS ON A STATE LEVEL IS DIFFERENT FROM FEDERAL.
PEOPLE WHO ARGUE FOR STATES RIGHTS DISTINGUISH THIS ALL THE TIME FROM FEDERAL.
EX: They argue Marriage laws belong to States not to Federal govt!

Surely as a law professor, you know there is a HUGE different in jurisdiction
and decisions/representation between State laws and Federal laws.

3. And NO CONSERVATIVE in Congress had PASSED that mandate
BECAUSE IT VIOLATES CONSERVATIVE AND CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLES!

It only passed when DEMOCRATS in Congress voted for it.

It FAILED when Conservatives vote for it because it goes against Constitutional beliefs that CONSERVATIVES BELIEVE IN
ie in limited federal govt that has NO authority to DEPRIVE citizens of liberty
(for health care benefits or other social programs that don't justify a compelling interest
because of conservative beliefs that private sector and free market can meet those demands better than govt).

At most the CONSERVATIVES would argue that a Constitutional Amendment
would need to be passed by the given process if federal govt and Constitution
is to be EXPANDED to include
* right to marriage
* right to health care

So NO Sneekin, conservatives do not support or endorse ANY
of what you are ascribing to them because it violates their own beliefs.

You would have better luck arguing that Democrats passed laws
violated their own prochoice principles (of not letting govt interfere with personal choices
but penalizing them), rather than saying Republicans passed or approved ANY SUCH
LAWS that violate their Constitutional beliefs in keeping social and health benefits apart from federal govt!

Thanks Sneekin

I wish it were that simple, but Conservatives have consistently
rejected growing more federal programs that make people more and more
dependent and lose their ability to check govt because of these conflicting interests
where govt starts controlling people instead of people having all the leverage.

P.S. here's the best explanation I found online as to why Conservatives
supported something DIFFERENT and not the federal mandate in ACA that overreached too far
where they argued it was unconstitutional:
No, Obamacare Wasn't a "Republican" Proposal

Someone else disagrees and argues more like you as posted on Reddit:
"I read this article the other day, and while it does highlight significant differences between the original Heritage Foundation proposal and the PPACA, the individual mandate (i.e. the subject of your post) was definitely in the Heritage proposal.

The argument for the similarity between the two plans depends on their one shared attribute: both contained a "mandate" requiring people to carry insurance coverage.
That said, the article also goes on to say the individual mandate idea has been around for much longer

Several other countries (including Switzerland, the Netherlands, and Germany) have compulsory insurance requirements without single-payer or socialized systems."

A. Just because people propose it doesn't mean they approve it as constitutional.
which is why it always got shot down before, it contradicts itself.
The conservatives who believe in prolife also get shot down by other conservatives
who argue for Constitutional religious freedom and limited govt not allowed to interfere and regulate private choices.
DOMA was pushed by conservatives, but shot down because it is unconstitutional.
Targeting Muslims is pushed by conservatives, but shot down because it is unconstitutional.

So what matters is what is found to be unconstitutional, regardless if it is proposed by conservatives.
That doesn't justify pushing it on them, especially where others disagree and argue it is unconstitutional.

B. just because people consent to ONE thing doesn't justify imposing another.
I would compare your argument to marriage, that if a couple agrees to sexual relations,
that doesn't give the right of either one to rape or force the other into sex!

So just because one partner proposes marriage first, does NOT give the
other partner the right to VIOLATE THEIR CONSENT and "claim they consented when they
proposed or agreed to marriage"!

Sneekin
so for the secondary point
NO it's not RFRA that makes it right or wrong, because that would be unnecessary anyway if people enforced the First Amendment/religious freedom and 14th Amendment consistently to begin with.

What causes THESE type of laws to be rejected is the fact they impose
on people's beliefs in the first place.

This violates natural laws on human free will and desire for self-determination
expressed as "consent of the governed" or "no taxation without representation."
If people find they are not equally represented, they will fight to change or remove the bias causing that problem.

This is human nature and the cycle of democratic process, to object petition and reform
laws through the given system.

So that process is REFLECTED in the First Amendment, and other
Constitutional principles on due process and equal protection of the laws.

And then in addition to that, people passed RFRA and Civil rights laws
to try to further define and delineate areas they wanted to protect from infringements
and discrimination more specifically.

We would not need these additional laws if people respected
equal religious freedom for everyone equally to begin with!

RFRA would not even be necessary.
What matters is if PEOPLE AGREE to respect each other's equal freedom and beliefs!

If so, we would naturally fulfill and enforce the principles in the
First and Fourteenth Amendments directly by our actions.

Again, you and I don't get to propose if something is constitutional or not - the SCOTUS does. We get to take it through the courts to the SCOTUS. In the case of what you are arguing, it's already been ruled on and decided. And you are still wrong. Nothing you claim is true, not even no taxation without representation - you've got plenty of representation down there.

The RFRA that is being proposed is unconstitutional. It's picking one single issue (gay marriage) and claiming marriage is only between a male and a female. That violates the 14th amendment. But it also doesn't address other religious beliefs - if you are Jewish, Muslim Buddhist, they can now deny you a cake, venue, etc, and not violate the RFRA. If you are Christian and advocate gay marriage, your first amendment rights are violated. I can't believe a single person would advocate for the RFRA. The first amendment is enough. Once you pass the RFRA, you will then be able to pass amendments removing rights from women, blacks, the elderly, the infirm, etc.

 

[Sneekin]

Republicans are against freedom. That most of them are against gay marriage makes it a fact.

No WheelieAddict
Are you going to say that not wanting to legislate God and Christianity through govt
means being antiChristian and antiGod?

Just because conservatives resist govt making decisions that belong to people
doesn't make them AGAINST those things!

the REAL conservatives and Constitutionalists want LIMITED govt
and MAXIMUM power to the people instead of being overregulated.

As for which party is against freedom,
the Democrats are argued as being more "antichoice"
if they are
AGAINST the free choice of how to pay for health care,
AGAINST the free choice to bear arms and to interpret the law as
recognizing right of people without requiring membership in a militia,
AGAINST the free choice of reparative therapy and the inclusion of
exgays and other people who believe in changing orientation.

If that's what you want, vote progressive. Republicans grow government, spend more, and rob from the poor and give tax breaks to the rich. Republicans also want to legislate God and Christianity throughout government.

Just because Democrats/Progressives want to uphold the first amendment doesn't make them anti Christian or God.

Conservatives make decisions that impact people, mainly the poor. They are against Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, Welfare, Section 8, SNAp, etc. They are ON RECORD for being against the programs.

Democrats do not argue about free choice to pay for health care - at no time did Obama direct it not be free choice. In fact, quite the opposite, as the majority of the people with health insurance are paying out of their free choice. The extreme poor (until Texas law passed) get Medicaid, IF THEY CHOOSE. As does the middle class and upper class. You are talking under 15 percent that utilizes the exchanges (as a half to, in lieu of alternative sources).
Democrats are not against the right to bear arms. And even the great Idol, Scalia, says that the second amendment is not an unlimited right. You can't have certain weapons. If you are a felon, no weapons and so on. I'm not aware of anyone that doesn't interpret existing law as saying MOST (not all) people have a right to bear arms.
You need to pull your head out and read up on what really happens with conversion therapy. The fact that you think there is such a thing as an ex-gay just demonstrates nothing more than stupidity (refusal to accept, versus simply being ignorant (uninformed)). Sexual Orientation CANNOT change. It can only be repressed. You are a Christian. Just because I tell you that you are a Catholic doesn't make you one. Same with conversion therapy. It's never worked, and if you knew anyone that IS GAY that has experienced Conversion therapy, they will tell you they are STILL GAY, they are repressing their sexual urges. Sex act is not the same as sexual orientation. I'm sorry you refuse to understand it, and I'm sorry you have no friends having experienced it, but I've had friends of my daughters that have suicided after therapy. Others have become wildly promiscuous (same sex) Some have married opposite sex spouses, and to this day sneak around on their spouses and having sex on the down low. Until you grasp the difference between the sex act and what sexual preference is, you should drop the subject. I can send you to Lesbian conversion therapy - and possibly you can be "converted" - that is, you might be able to have sex with another female. Does that make you a lesbian? NO. Will you still have sex with your opposite sex spouse? Most definitely.

^ Dear Sneekin what part of MANDATES and FINES are you saying are free choice?
the cheapest route for me to avoid being under fines/mandates I never agreed to was
to pay or owe 45 a month for membership in a Christian health shares ministry.

So basically the Federal Govt REQUIRED me to either
* pay for insurance I couldn't afford,
* register for an exchange I don't believe in (the very least intrusion on my civil liberties
being to apply for domestic abuse exception where I do consider this depriving me of my income
and exercise of my liberties without any due process to prove I committed a crime or abuse)
* or PAY to join a RELIGIOUS organization that exempts me from penalty

How is any of THAT "free choice" to pay and provide health care through charities and medical programs
I deem more cost effective and sustainable?

Sneekin I USED to have free choice without penalties,
but now I am restricted to only the choices above until state alternatives are set up.

And the CHEAPEST choice even requires JOINING A FAITH BASED GROUP
AND PAYING FOR MEMBERSHIP.

Why aren't you offended by that ^ as a VIOLATION where govt is REGULATING
exemptions based on PAID MEMBERSHIP IN APPROVED RELIGIOUS GROUPS!!!

BTW here is the DOJ definition of domestic abuse I would ask to use for an exemption:

Domestic Violence | OVW | Department of Justice

Economic Abuse: Is defined as making or attempting to make an individual financially dependent by maintaining total control over financial resources, withholding one's access to money, or forbidding one's attendance at school or employment.

I have been begging for help to get out from under MANDATES I never agreed to because these violate my beliefs and free choice without due process of laws and representation,
and equal protection of my beliefs in rights of people and states that weren't changed by an amendment to the Constitution to authorize govt to impose mandates on health care.

If you teach law in a school where you can ask other profs or students to research this,
I would love to find a law firm or lawyer to petition to fix this mess!

This post is offensive. For you to belittle and ridicule domestic abuse......I hope you are never in need of any resources. To answer your question, you can't get an exemption from DV. No one is withholding your money. You could go self insured, and not costs you a cent, provided your business has the resources to cover expenses.
Mandate: the authority to carry out a policy or course of action, regarded as given by the electorate to a candidate or party that is victorious in an election: You elect people, they voted contrary to what you wanted. I believe that falls in the too bad too sad pile. You'll need to "drain the swamp" and get new people in from Texas. Otherwise, it's the definition of insanity - repeating the same mistakes over and over again and expecting different results

Dear @Sne ekin

1. the way to STOP repeating these mistakes is to respect people's CONSENT to begin with.
E X A C T L Y ! Bingo!
This would stop ALL MANNER of abuse, bullying coercion by respecting peopel's free will and consent instead of overruling and overriding it.

2. and yes I have been victimized by one of the worst
forms of relationship abuse, by being FORCED TO ABORT A BABY AGAINST MY WISHES MY BELIEFS AND INTENT!
My partner ìnsisted he would kill himself, if I even offered to have the baby and give it up for adoption.
He and others convinced me by bullying that this was someone all my responsibility and mistake
and my ONLY CHOICE was to abort the baby to prevent from imposing on anyone else who didn't want that responsibility.

So I've been through a TERRIBLE case of having my consent violated by complete coercion
until I felt no other choice to stop the constant harassment and bullying except to agree to an abortion!

Can you BELIEVE that???
I still cannot believe I went through that, but it happened to me

3. So you wonder why I am such an advocate for consent and against coercion.
I saw what it did to someone like me who was even forced to violate my own beliefs
and abort a baby I wanted. That's how horrible it is to me to see anyone else's consent violated.

So I say NO to going down that path.
No coercion, and if something is really right or wrong
you should be able to AGREE on it and take action by consent
(unless the person is mentally or criminally ill or disabled
in which case I support spiritual healing to ensure that
nobody's will is violated until the conflicts can be remedied)

I am seeking ways to stop ALL FORMS OF ABUSE OPPRESSION AND VICTIMIZATION
That come from violating consent of people.

So that's how I interpret 'free exercise of religion" to mean FREE WILL
which requires balancing and consensus among all people equally so nobody gets violated
as I went through because of other people's beliefs.

Been there, done that, it doesn't work to force people.
The best way to undo the damage to relations and obstructing
people from resolving conflicts is to respect CONSENT and include
all people so we don't lose time energy resources or relationships
bullying and forcing anything on anyone against their beliefs!

Unfortunately for you, that's not the way our government works. And no one can force you to consent to an abortion. They "forced" you to make a choice between an abortion and a boyfriend, and if the baby was truly more important, you would have kicked him to the curb. Because of all rights, it is your right and your right alone to make a decision about your own body.

 

[emilynghiem]

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.

Hi Sneekin sorry I got behind reading, thanking and responding to all your messages
which I don't want you to think are going underappreciated!
I will struggle to catch up with you, but think this is GREAT and well worth the effort on both our part.
THANK YOU and I will go back and give you all the credit, thanks, info's etc you deserve for spelling all this out
so we can work this out in detail comprehensively.

Can I start with this one point about Heritage Foundation
[and secondary point about RFRA vs Constitutional religious freedom in general]

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.

A. No, this Heritage Argument was debunked
1. the insurance was for CATASTROPHIC ONLY
IT WAS NEVER INTENDED FOR FED GOVT TO MICROMANAGE ALL HEALTH CARE COMPREHENSIVELY
WHICH VIOLATES THE BELIEFS OF CONSERVATIVES IN LIMITED GOVT!!

We both know Conservatives are OPPOSED to federal govt interfering with personal finances and health care.
They have CONSISTENTLY screamed against anything risking the path of SOCIALISM and still prefer to change to PRIVATE.
That's been their stance opposing ANY govt welfare, health care, benefits etc.

2. Yo, earth to Sneekin, law professor:
PASSING LAWS ON A STATE LEVEL IS DIFFERENT FROM FEDERAL.
PEOPLE WHO ARGUE FOR STATES RIGHTS DISTINGUISH THIS ALL THE TIME FROM FEDERAL.
EX: They argue Marriage laws belong to States not to Federal govt!

Surely as a law professor, you know there is a HUGE different in jurisdiction
and decisions/representation between State laws and Federal laws.

3. And NO CONSERVATIVE in Congress had PASSED that mandate
BECAUSE IT VIOLATES CONSERVATIVE AND CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLES!

It only passed when DEMOCRATS in Congress voted for it.

It FAILED when Conservatives vote for it because it goes against Constitutional beliefs that CONSERVATIVES BELIEVE IN
ie in limited federal govt that has NO authority to DEPRIVE citizens of liberty
(for health care benefits or other social programs that don't justify a compelling interest
because of conservative beliefs that private sector and free market can meet those demands better than govt).

At most the CONSERVATIVES would argue that a Constitutional Amendment
would need to be passed by the given process if federal govt and Constitution
is to be EXPANDED to include
* right to marriage
* right to health care

So NO Sneekin, conservatives do not support or endorse ANY
of what you are ascribing to them because it violates their own beliefs.

You would have better luck arguing that Democrats passed laws
violated their own prochoice principles (of not letting govt interfere with personal choices
but penalizing them), rather than saying Republicans passed or approved ANY SUCH
LAWS that violate their Constitutional beliefs in keeping social and health benefits apart from federal govt!

Thanks Sneekin

I wish it were that simple, but Conservatives have consistently
rejected growing more federal programs that make people more and more
dependent and lose their ability to check govt because of these conflicting interests
where govt starts controlling people instead of people having all the leverage.

Emily:

1. The Heritage Foundation was written specifically back in the 1990's when Hillary was working on her "wife of the president" Single Payer Health Care proposal. The Heritage Foundation wrote this for the entire country, and proposed using insurance plans throughout the US (the ability to buy across state lines). This is pretty common knowledge to those who were focused on Obama and his proposed health care plan. Republicans at the time were worried that the public would go for a single payer system, so they funded the Heritage Foundation in an attempt to counteract Hillary's proposal. Hillary's plan died on the vine when republicans took over congress, and the Heritage plan was shelved, until Romney dredged it up, and implemented it after tweaking the proposal to be a single state system. Obama dusted it off, tweaked it back, and gave it to congressional committees to tweak. As republicans were also on the committee, one knows it didn't violate their constitutions.

Paul Ryan, speaker of the House, works with social programs. to say it's against his beliefs is laughable. Paul and Mitch are against social programs that don't help people of their own personal states only. Same with health care. It's been proven over and over that health care is cheaper when spread over the population, rather than taxing the democrats when the lazy and ignorant republicans refuse to pay for insurance, practice gluttony, and need expensive surgeries - when all could have been avoided with a simple drug, like Lipitor, or a simple ace inhibitor - which combined costs to the citizenry is only a few cents per month. Single payer health care has even more savings. Check it out.

2. There are more republicans on public aid and disability than democrats, so what you claim is totally wrong. The poor (republicans) voted for Trump. Last time I looked, he's a republican.

I really wish you'd learn how government works. And you still can't pass a constitutional amendment for the reasons you claim.

And? Sneekin
If people do not agree to such mandates they argue are flawed and unconstitutional,
are you insinuating they have no right to dissent because OTHER PEOPLE proposed them?

I don't understand your bias Sneekin
You also argue that since SOME PEOPLE have interpreted the Bible to justify slavery
then ALL PEOPLE have to respect and include that intepretation if they follow the Bible.
What?

Just because scientists once misidentified the Brontosaurus as a separate dinosaur,
does that mean ALL science related to dinosaurs is flawed because of THOSE PEOPLE in THAT situation?

So if SOME people "propose" that marriage HAS to mean one man and one woman only,
does that mean ALL people have to believe and accept the same?

Where are you getting this Sneekin?
You can argue and be right that Heritage foundation first
proposed the insurance mandate even for Catastrophic only,
and that DOESN'T JUSTIFY passing and imposing it against
the BELIEFS of other citizens.

So ANYTHING that ANYONE says can be imposed on others?
What are you SAYING???

If some Christians teach KKK policies against race mixing,
then ALL CHRISTIANS have to enforce the same?

WHAT?

 

[emilynghiem]

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.

Hi Sneekin sorry I got behind reading, thanking and responding to all your messages
which I don't want you to think are going underappreciated!
I will struggle to catch up with you, but think this is GREAT and well worth the effort on both our part.
THANK YOU and I will go back and give you all the credit, thanks, info's etc you deserve for spelling all this out
so we can work this out in detail comprehensively.

Can I start with this one point about Heritage Foundation
[and secondary point about RFRA vs Constitutional religious freedom in general]

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.

A. No, this Heritage Argument was debunked
1. the insurance was for CATASTROPHIC ONLY
IT WAS NEVER INTENDED FOR FED GOVT TO MICROMANAGE ALL HEALTH CARE COMPREHENSIVELY
WHICH VIOLATES THE BELIEFS OF CONSERVATIVES IN LIMITED GOVT!!

We both know Conservatives are OPPOSED to federal govt interfering with personal finances and health care.
They have CONSISTENTLY screamed against anything risking the path of SOCIALISM and still prefer to change to PRIVATE.
That's been their stance opposing ANY govt welfare, health care, benefits etc.

2. Yo, earth to Sneekin, law professor:
PASSING LAWS ON A STATE LEVEL IS DIFFERENT FROM FEDERAL.
PEOPLE WHO ARGUE FOR STATES RIGHTS DISTINGUISH THIS ALL THE TIME FROM FEDERAL.
EX: They argue Marriage laws belong to States not to Federal govt!

Surely as a law professor, you know there is a HUGE different in jurisdiction
and decisions/representation between State laws and Federal laws.

3. And NO CONSERVATIVE in Congress had PASSED that mandate
BECAUSE IT VIOLATES CONSERVATIVE AND CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLES!

It only passed when DEMOCRATS in Congress voted for it.

It FAILED when Conservatives vote for it because it goes against Constitutional beliefs that CONSERVATIVES BELIEVE IN
ie in limited federal govt that has NO authority to DEPRIVE citizens of liberty
(for health care benefits or other social programs that don't justify a compelling interest
because of conservative beliefs that private sector and free market can meet those demands better than govt).

At most the CONSERVATIVES would argue that a Constitutional Amendment
would need to be passed by the given process if federal govt and Constitution
is to be EXPANDED to include
* right to marriage
* right to health care

So NO Sneekin, conservatives do not support or endorse ANY
of what you are ascribing to them because it violates their own beliefs.

You would have better luck arguing that Democrats passed laws
violated their own prochoice principles (of not letting govt interfere with personal choices
but penalizing them), rather than saying Republicans passed or approved ANY SUCH
LAWS that violate their Constitutional beliefs in keeping social and health benefits apart from federal govt!

Thanks Sneekin

I wish it were that simple, but Conservatives have consistently
rejected growing more federal programs that make people more and more
dependent and lose their ability to check govt because of these conflicting interests
where govt starts controlling people instead of people having all the leverage.

P.S. here's the best explanation I found online as to why Conservatives
supported something DIFFERENT and not the federal mandate in ACA that overreached too far
where they argued it was unconstitutional:
No, Obamacare Wasn't a "Republican" Proposal

Someone else disagrees and argues more like you as posted on Reddit:
"I read this article the other day, and while it does highlight significant differences between the original Heritage Foundation proposal and the PPACA, the individual mandate (i.e. the subject of your post) was definitely in the Heritage proposal.

The argument for the similarity between the two plans depends on their one shared attribute: both contained a "mandate" requiring people to carry insurance coverage.
That said, the article also goes on to say the individual mandate idea has been around for much longer

Several other countries (including Switzerland, the Netherlands, and Germany) have compulsory insurance requirements without single-payer or socialized systems."

A. Just because people propose it doesn't mean they approve it as constitutional.
which is why it always got shot down before, it contradicts itself.
The conservatives who believe in prolife also get shot down by other conservatives
who argue for Constitutional religious freedom and limited govt not allowed to interfere and regulate private choices.
DOMA was pushed by conservatives, but shot down because it is unconstitutional.
Targeting Muslims is pushed by conservatives, but shot down because it is unconstitutional.

So what matters is what is found to be unconstitutional, regardless if it is proposed by conservatives.
That doesn't justify pushing it on them, especially where others disagree and argue it is unconstitutional.

B. just because people consent to ONE thing doesn't justify imposing another.
I would compare your argument to marriage, that if a couple agrees to sexual relations,
that doesn't give the right of either one to rape or force the other into sex!

So just because one partner proposes marriage first, does NOT give the
other partner the right to VIOLATE THEIR CONSENT and "claim they consented when they
proposed or agreed to marriage"!

Sneekin
so for the secondary point
NO it's not RFRA that makes it right or wrong, because that would be unnecessary anyway if people enforced the First Amendment/religious freedom and 14th Amendment consistently to begin with.

What causes THESE type of laws to be rejected is the fact they impose
on people's beliefs in the first place.

This violates natural laws on human free will and desire for self-determination
expressed as "consent of the governed" or "no taxation without representation."
If people find they are not equally represented, they will fight to change or remove the bias causing that problem.

This is human nature and the cycle of democratic process, to object petition and reform
laws through the given system.

So that process is REFLECTED in the First Amendment, and other
Constitutional principles on due process and equal protection of the laws.

And then in addition to that, people passed RFRA and Civil rights laws
to try to further define and delineate areas they wanted to protect from infringements
and discrimination more specifically.

We would not need these additional laws if people respected
equal religious freedom for everyone equally to begin with!

RFRA would not even be necessary.
What matters is if PEOPLE AGREE to respect each other's equal freedom and beliefs!

If so, we would naturally fulfill and enforce the principles in the
First and Fourteenth Amendments directly by our actions.

Again, you and I don't get to propose if something is constitutional or not - the SCOTUS does. We get to take it through the courts to the SCOTUS. In the case of what you are arguing, it's already been ruled on and decided. And you are still wrong. Nothing you claim is true, not even no taxation without representation - you've got plenty of representation down there.

The RFRA that is being proposed is unconstitutional. It's picking one single issue (gay marriage) and claiming marriage is only between a male and a female. That violates the 14th amendment. But it also doesn't address other religious beliefs - if you are Jewish, Muslim Buddhist, they can now deny you a cake, venue, etc, and not violate the RFRA. If you are Christian and advocate gay marriage, your first amendment rights are violated. I can't believe a single person would advocate for the RFRA. The first amendment is enough. Once you pass the RFRA, you will then be able to pass amendments removing rights from women, blacks, the elderly, the infirm, etc.

Sure Sneekin
But people have to bring arguments or corrections TO the Courts and TO Congress first.

What I am doing is trying to form CONSENSUS first on WHAT REFORMS
to bring to Congress to SAVE TIME AND TROUBLE.

So if Congress got it right the first time
(such as passing laws UNANIMOUSLY like the Code of Ethics for
Govt Service: www.ethics-commission.net as an EXAMPLE)
then everyone would agree and we wouldn't NE ED to
argue before Courts if a law or reform WE ALL AGREE TO BE Constitutional
was passed IN THE FIRST PLACE!!!

SEE above code of ethics ^
on seeking to employ the most economical
and efficient means of getting tasks accomplished.

Any person in govt service should
"IV. Seek to find and employ more efficient and economical ways of getting tasks accomplished.

We could have avoided a 24 billion dollar
shut down of govt if ACA had been resolved up front,
such as by making the contested mandates optional,
and allowing both sides voting opposite ways to each
support a separate plan and including both as equal choices for taxpayers of different beliefs.
then keeping this optional would have remained constitutional
and both could have passed. but we didn't do that.
So I'm asking we do that NOW and stop wasting resources fighting.
Over beliefs that people don't consent to change to the other group's!

 

[emilynghiem]

Then
Then why are you complaining Faun if you agree that there are reasons I don't have time to search and reply right away.

I answered your question multiple times and you didn't accept those posts as replies. How is this my fault that you don't count three attempts to answer your post?

Is this just your way of communicating?

If so don't complain about my way if yours is just as contrary!

If this is the best you can do, I accept that, and ask you hold the same courtesy to me when my replies seem off to you as well. Thank you Faun

Had you answered my question, I wouldn't have kept repeating it. Perhaps you thought you answered it in one of your many long-winded diatribes, but you didn't. My question prompted you for a "yes" or "no" answer and neither were forthcoming from you.

Which leads me to offering yet more assistance to you in your efforts to save your jobs and your relationships with your mother, boyfriend, nephew, other friends, family members, pets, whatever....

Stop wasting time on these posts which are unrelated to the forum topic. Stop wasting time whining about how others are treating you. You need to severely cut back on posting, so make every post count.

That said, you've now made many off-topic posts and sent me multiple PM's but you haven't addressed my response to you finally answering my question.

I'll repost it here to make it convenient for you to respond in order to save you time...

___________________________​

Faun: do you believe churches should also stop marrying couples?

emilynghiem: I said NO, that is going in the WRONG direction. The point is to keep the govt focused on CIVIL contracts so of course the marriages would stay with the people, churches, etc outside govt.

... now here's the part I'd like you to respond to...

___________________________​

So you want churches to marry people but not the government marrying people??

That means gay people cannot marry the person of their choice. That sounds reasonable to you?

That means atheists cannot get married. That sounds reasonable to you?

Thanks for your answer but your answer is EXACTLY the reason why government must, and will, remain involved in civil marriages.

A vital role of government is to secure our rights. Everyone has the right to marry within certain limitations of the law (e.g., consent, non-consanguinity)

In your world, homosexuals and atheists would be denied their right to marry while all religious heterosexuals would still have their right to marry the person of their choice.

What utter sanctimonious bullshit, Emily.

The government is not divorcing itself from marriage precisely because of people like you who seek to deny certain folks their rights. The government will stay in the marriage business to secure everyone's rights from people like you who would deny folks their rights based on your religious beliefs.

RE: In your world, homosexuals and atheists would be denied their right to marry while all religious heterosexuals would still have their right to marry the person of their choice.
NO, I'm saying to AVOID that by either:
A. if govt use marriage then ALL people get that
(and I'm suggesting that to reach agreement on inclusion, to treat LGBT beliefs
and Christian beliefs about spiritual healing prayer equally, neither imposing one while excluding the other)
B. if people cannot agre e on that, but for example ALL agre e to civil contracts,
then ALL people get that.
C. as for your concern that if that were to happen and this leaves out Atheists who don't have
a way to get married, I am saying to set it up -- by agreement BEFORE changing policies*. so if there needs to be separate CHOICE of funding for govt programs
that deals with "social" benefits that not all people agree to the terms of, that can be done while
setting up state alternatives to resolve ACA issues and requirements that are FACING this SAME ISSUE.

Sorry Faun if you don't like my full answer.
I am trying to address these things in context.
the solutions to one point (such as marriage issues) solve other problems as well (such as health care issues).

* NOTE to Faun: ACA required states alternatives to avoid penalty BEFORE setting these up. Did you complain about ACA being unconstitutional by requiring people to face fines for not choosing alternatives that weren't even allowed to be proposed to states yet much less set up?

A. Already occurs - you can do all of the spiritual prayer healing on your own time, or during moments of silence. You can't do it around me, as it violates my religious principles (first amendment violation). Christianity isn't the only religion, there are thousands, and not all Christians believe in spiritual healing prayer.
B. Nothing to agree to - already the law, and the law says civil marriages are civil contracts. Anyone that gets married utilizing a state issued marriage license has the civil contract for their civil marriage. If you don't want a civil marriage, have your officiant NOT sign a marriage license, and exempt yourself from the civic benefits you get from your civil marriage contract.
C. Existing civil marriage laws cover both religious and Atheist - it already occurs.

Finally you don't get to agree/come to a consensus or directives such as the ACA - it's not YOUR JOB, it's the job of your Congress. Sounds like it's going away. Texas, in the next 2 weeks, is going to cut Medicaid for Autistic, Children with Down's Syndrome, and other disabled children's therapy services. A cut of 350 Million dollars that will affect 60,000 children, and also force businesses that provide these services to fold. So it seems you people in Texas need to clean up your own back yard before you mess with our services. Children with these delays require constant attention that will no longer be provided, which means more parents will be unable to work.....Texas congressmen are on record as not even investigating the impacts of implementing these changes. Texas health officials testified in court in 2015 that they had not studied how the budget cuts would affect children’s access to medically necessary therapy treatments. Not to mention your law going into effect on the 19th of this month, requiring fetal remains to be buried or cremated - unless the abortion or miscarriage happens at home. Let's just hope you don't miscarry/spontaneously abort on your way to work, as by the new law, you are required to go to the ER and be treated - even if you are weeks along. Your illustrious governor is requiring the hospitals to pay these expenses - which will more than likely raise your taxes. Attorneys for the reproductive rights of women are ready to litigate, and predict this will be costly - for the state.

Dear Sneekin

3. RE: ACA as long as it affects my taxes and income, it is my job to see that I am represented.

The people are supposed to be the govt, the govt is supposed to represent the people.
If there is conflict it is up to both people inside and outside govt to fix it.
Nobody is going to mediate and reach consensus if they don't even believe it is possible much less legally necessary.
That is my belief, and only I can take responsibility for it, and/or for finding leaders who believe the same
so we can work it out together.

2. spiritual healing is an essential part of health care, and one of the keys for sustainable universal care afforded to ALL.

Sneekin if we do not research the ability of spiritual healing to cure CRIMINAL illness,
this puts innocent people, like children killed by Andrea Yates due to sick obsession with
demonic type voices, at risk instead of protecting them from deadly disease
that CAN BE CURED by REMOVING the demonic type obessions and voices driving people to kill.

This spiritual healing process works on ATHEISTS. I have a friend who used it to fight off
demons he also had, similar to the patients in Scott Peck's book Glimpses of the Devil.

The good news is we can research and prove how this process works naturally and universally
with medical science, so it does NOT have to be imposed which doesn't work anyway.
The only way this process works is by FREE choice because the therapy is based
on Forgiveness which has to be chosen freely or it's false and FAILS.

You CANNOT fake healing because you cannot fake forgiveness.
Either you are healed and free or you are SUPPRESSED like you said where it's fake.

I would say of all the things and angles we discussed,
spiritual healing is the closest "equivalent" of wanting govt marriage.

To incorporate the CHOICE of spiritual healing into mental and medical health care
would change the system to free up resources to save more lives and mental/physical health of people.

so it would not be "taking away" any choices but A D DING them.
Your same reaction that it is AGAINST what you believe
is how others are saying SIMILAR about gay marriage.
But if we are OFFERING an equal choice, that is adding not taking away.

And you can wait until you see PROOF that it saves lives
and decide which cases you believe are true or which are fake.

1. If we focus on that, then there will be agreement reached on other areas as well.
Because the same process of forgiveness that heals mind and body in spiritual healing therapy
also heals relationships between people, so it affects all other areas of conflicts, both political or religious,
that can then be resolved without the contention getting in the way of forming agreed solutions!
*(And no, you aren't asked to take that on faith either, that can be proven in the same process.
by the time we do the medical research on spiritual healing, all levels it applies to can be demonstrated with the same efforts
it takes to prove one area. so you can see the proof it works before adapting any knowledge or understanding of this into your thinking.)

You are represented. Call your congressmen.

^ It takes MORE than that Sneekin
I'd been trying to help our Congress rep for 20 years now.

Sheila Jackson Lee signed on to the campus plans reforming HUD housing since
she first began serving in office in 1994, and it still hasn't gotten support to enforce and fund.

www.campusplan.org

It takes other leaders and entire parties backing these plans.
But they have been too busy funding elections instead of building directly.

Trump getting elected is the first sign I've seen of serious response
to start backing these campus plans to build independently of govt.

The communities like this represent their interests COLLECTIVELY
so it takes UNITY a cross the entire party to finally support and enact these plans!
They have be en too divided, so nothing worked all this time,
but now we might have a chance at unity with Ben Carson appointed to HUD
which may influence all leaders left and right to unite and quit wasting resources fighting
that could be invested DIRECTLY into building educational programs to end poverty.

 

[emilynghiem]

No WheelieAddict
Are you going to say that not wanting to legislate God and Christianity through govt
means being antiChristian and antiGod?

Just because conservatives resist govt making decisions that belong to people
doesn't make them AGAINST those things!

the REAL conservatives and Constitutionalists want LIMITED govt
and MAXIMUM power to the people instead of being overregulated.

As for which party is against freedom,
the Democrats are argued as being more "antichoice"
if they are
AGAINST the free choice of how to pay for health care,
AGAINST the free choice to bear arms and to interpret the law as
recognizing right of people without requiring membership in a militia,
AGAINST the free choice of reparative therapy and the inclusion of
exgays and other people who believe in changing orientation.

If that's what you want, vote progressive. Republicans grow government, spend more, and rob from the poor and give tax breaks to the rich. Republicans also want to legislate God and Christianity throughout government.

Just because Democrats/Progressives want to uphold the first amendment doesn't make them anti Christian or God.

Conservatives make decisions that impact people, mainly the poor. They are against Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, Welfare, Section 8, SNAp, etc. They are ON RECORD for being against the programs.

Democrats do not argue about free choice to pay for health care - at no time did Obama direct it not be free choice. In fact, quite the opposite, as the majority of the people with health insurance are paying out of their free choice. The extreme poor (until Texas law passed) get Medicaid, IF THEY CHOOSE. As does the middle class and upper class. You are talking under 15 percent that utilizes the exchanges (as a half to, in lieu of alternative sources).
Democrats are not against the right to bear arms. And even the great Idol, Scalia, says that the second amendment is not an unlimited right. You can't have certain weapons. If you are a felon, no weapons and so on. I'm not aware of anyone that doesn't interpret existing law as saying MOST (not all) people have a right to bear arms.
You need to pull your head out and read up on what really happens with conversion therapy. The fact that you think there is such a thing as an ex-gay just demonstrates nothing more than stupidity (refusal to accept, versus simply being ignorant (uninformed)). Sexual Orientation CANNOT change. It can only be repressed. You are a Christian. Just because I tell you that you are a Catholic doesn't make you one. Same with conversion therapy. It's never worked, and if you knew anyone that IS GAY that has experienced Conversion therapy, they will tell you they are STILL GAY, they are repressing their sexual urges. Sex act is not the same as sexual orientation. I'm sorry you refuse to understand it, and I'm sorry you have no friends having experienced it, but I've had friends of my daughters that have suicided after therapy. Others have become wildly promiscuous (same sex) Some have married opposite sex spouses, and to this day sneak around on their spouses and having sex on the down low. Until you grasp the difference between the sex act and what sexual preference is, you should drop the subject. I can send you to Lesbian conversion therapy - and possibly you can be "converted" - that is, you might be able to have sex with another female. Does that make you a lesbian? NO. Will you still have sex with your opposite sex spouse? Most definitely.

^ Dear Sneekin what part of MANDATES and FINES are you saying are free choice?
the cheapest route for me to avoid being under fines/mandates I never agreed to was
to pay or owe 45 a month for membership in a Christian health shares ministry.

So basically the Federal Govt REQUIRED me to either
* pay for insurance I couldn't afford,
* register for an exchange I don't believe in (the very least intrusion on my civil liberties
being to apply for domestic abuse exception where I do consider this depriving me of my income
and exercise of my liberties without any due process to prove I committed a crime or abuse)
* or PAY to join a RELIGIOUS organization that exempts me from penalty

How is any of THAT "free choice" to pay and provide health care through charities and medical programs
I deem more cost effective and sustainable?

Sneekin I USED to have free choice without penalties,
but now I am restricted to only the choices above until state alternatives are set up.

And the CHEAPEST choice even requires JOINING A FAITH BASED GROUP
AND PAYING FOR MEMBERSHIP.

Why aren't you offended by that ^ as a VIOLATION where govt is REGULATING
exemptions based on PAID MEMBERSHIP IN APPROVED RELIGIOUS GROUPS!!!

BTW here is the DOJ definition of domestic abuse I would ask to use for an exemption:

Domestic Violence | OVW | Department of Justice

Economic Abuse: Is defined as making or attempting to make an individual financially dependent by maintaining total control over financial resources, withholding one's access to money, or forbidding one's attendance at school or employment.

I have been begging for help to get out from under MANDATES I never agreed to because these violate my beliefs and free choice without due process of laws and representation,
and equal protection of my beliefs in rights of people and states that weren't changed by an amendment to the Constitution to authorize govt to impose mandates on health care.

If you teach law in a school where you can ask other profs or students to research this,
I would love to find a law firm or lawyer to petition to fix this mess!

This post is offensive. For you to belittle and ridicule domestic abuse......I hope you are never in need of any resources. To answer your question, you can't get an exemption from DV. No one is withholding your money. You could go self insured, and not costs you a cent, provided your business has the resources to cover expenses.
Mandate: the authority to carry out a policy or course of action, regarded as given by the electorate to a candidate or party that is victorious in an election: You elect people, they voted contrary to what you wanted. I believe that falls in the too bad too sad pile. You'll need to "drain the swamp" and get new people in from Texas. Otherwise, it's the definition of insanity - repeating the same mistakes over and over again and expecting different results

Dear @Sne ekin

1. the way to STOP repeating these mistakes is to respect people's CONSENT to begin with.
E X A C T L Y ! Bingo!
This would stop ALL MANNER of abuse, bullying coercion by respecting peopel's free will and consent instead of overruling and overriding it.

2. and yes I have been victimized by one of the worst
forms of relationship abuse, by being FORCED TO ABORT A BABY AGAINST MY WISHES MY BELIEFS AND INTENT!
My partner ìnsisted he would kill himself, if I even offered to have the baby and give it up for adoption.
He and others convinced me by bullying that this was someone all my responsibility and mistake
and my ONLY CHOICE was to abort the baby to prevent from imposing on anyone else who didn't want that responsibility.

So I've been through a TERRIBLE case of having my consent violated by complete coercion
until I felt no other choice to stop the constant harassment and bullying except to agree to an abortion!

Can you BELIEVE that???
I still cannot believe I went through that, but it happened to me

3. So you wonder why I am such an advocate for consent and against coercion.
I saw what it did to someone like me who was even forced to violate my own beliefs
and abort a baby I wanted. That's how horrible it is to me to see anyone else's consent violated.

So I say NO to going down that path.
No coercion, and if something is really right or wrong
you should be able to AGREE on it and take action by consent
(unless the person is mentally or criminally ill or disabled
in which case I support spiritual healing to ensure that
nobody's will is violated until the conflicts can be remedied)

I am seeking ways to stop ALL FORMS OF ABUSE OPPRESSION AND VICTIMIZATION
That come from violating consent of people.

So that's how I interpret 'free exercise of religion" to mean FREE WILL
which requires balancing and consensus among all people equally so nobody gets violated
as I went through because of other people's beliefs.

Been there, done that, it doesn't work to force people.
The best way to undo the damage to relations and obstructing
people from resolving conflicts is to respect CONSENT and include
all people so we don't lose time energy resources or relationships
bullying and forcing anything on anyone against their beliefs!

Unfortunately for you, that's not the way our government works. And no one can force you to consent to an abortion. They "forced" you to make a choice between an abortion and a boyfriend, and if the baby was truly more important, you would have kicked him to the curb. Because of all rights, it is your right and your right alone to make a decision about your own body.

That's not what happens in reality, Sneekin
If we don't enforce consent but allow coercion, this enables the bullying to harass and abuse others.

You should know this as a law professor.
Technically we all have equal protections of the laws.

* but when a rape victim is told fighting her case in court
isn't going to win and she might as well give up,
that's not equal protection as the person who raped her.
But that's what happened to a daughter of a friend of mine.
And he blows it off as well, so he is enabling such legal abuse to continue
where the person who raped her had more legal resources and could
fight it while she did not have equal support to defend her rights and interests!

* and the cases I got involved with were similar.
due to legal abuses, corporate interests were able to get
govt favor and millions in funds denied to nonprofits that
actually represented and defended the communities
to prevent coercion oppression and abuse. So govt
leaders enabled the oppression using public tax dollars.

this is reality Sneekin
I don't know what you are teaching your law students.
Maybe they should investigate FT and find out what
enabled this legal abuse to violate equal civil rights and protections
by favoring corporate interests with more political and legal resources.

 

[emilynghiem]

NOPE
1. first I am not saying to do all this, I am saying that if people agrees it solves the problem to be open to such solutions
by my standards, I only go by CONSENT
so if you do not consent to this, that is taken into account in the solution

2. second, the people set up alternatives and agreements BEFORE changing any laws
again I hold to that standard by CONSENT of the governed

Now Faun since I am answering your questions can you answer mine:
3. Do you agree to these same standards of NOT requiring people to go through
options that aren't equally available for all people?

And if so, do you support the ACA mandates that require people to either
go through the govt approved and regulated choices for health care or insurance to avoid penalties,
or wait on STATE ALTERNATIVES to be created that also need to MEET GOVT approval.

if these choices HAVEN'T BEEN implemented yet,
do you agree with laws REQUIRING PEOPLE TO GO THROUGH THEM FOR HEALTH CARE?
OR ELSE FACE FINES?

Please answer that question ^
Thanks Faun

You say, "nope," but your position said, "yes, yes, yes!"

You said you believe churches should marry folks but that the government shouldn't. If such a disaster ever occurred, it would mean exactly that -- religious heterosexual would be about the only people who could get married on the U.S.. At least freely and to the person of their choice.

You may not comprehend this, but it's because of people like you that the government is in the business of marriage; as well as securing all other rights as well.

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.

Dear Faun
I believe govt should accommodate ALL These beliefs equally
1. people who want to go through church to marry
2. people who want to go through govt
3. people who want both, or neither, or some other way
So how do we set up a system that allows any combination of these
without imposing on anyone with different beliefs?

Our system does accommodate exactly that
1- if a couple wants to marry through a church- then they can be married through a church.
2- if a couple wants to marry, but not through a church- then they can be married outside a church.
3- if a couple wants both- then they can do both.
4.- if a couple wants neither- well then they are not married- and our system accommodates that also.

Whatever any of those couples do- do not impose on the beliefs of anyone else?

Why would a Jewish couple marrying in a synogogue be imposing on the beliefs of a Christian who doesn't believe in the Jewish faith?

Dear Syriusly
There is disagreement on terms of using govt to marry people.
Faun said it isn't enough for govt to just do civil contracts but actual marriages.

The people who are arguing that gay marriage violates beliefs
have no problem with atheists marrying through govt, or people of different races, but do not
believe in govt endorsing same sex couples..

Emily the same people who object to 'gay marriage' also objected to legal alternative (equal but different) arrangements such as civil partnerships- when the good Christians of Georgia passed the law to ban gay marriage, they also passed a law to ban any recognition of any civil partnerships.

And of course there are people to this day who object to mixed race couples marrying- in church or out of church.

None of us have any right to an alternative to marriage- but we do have a right to marriage.
My wife and I are married- and if anyone has an issue with that- that is their problem- not ours.
If anyone has problems with my wonderful friend who married his partner a year, that is their problem not my friends.

It is not possible to find a compromise that EVERYONE will agree to.

But it is possible to extend legal marriage to everyone- and now we have.

Dear Syriusly
That can still be negotiated.
Given the choice between either states
conducting marriage for everyone or civil unions and partnerships,
if those are the two choices, they'd either pick partnerships.

Or possibly the other idea of allowing marriages
if references to God, Christmas, spiritual healing prayer
and creation can be tolerated and included
the same way as LGBT beliefs.

Until those terms are offered and negotiated,
we don't know what policies people might agree to
per state or nationally.

I'd even throw in the right to life and right to health care
as separate options if people agree to separate tracks.
maybe that would get people to agree to concessions on both sides!

And to pay for these tracks by crediting back restitution
to taxpayers for past abuses of govt and violations of equal rights and beliefs.
That might also give incentive for people to seek common solutions!

 

[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. The reps in Congress (legislative)
and the President (executive) who voted yes and passed it were
ALL DEMOCRATS.

The Republicans voted NO..

The Texs Democratic Party platform openly sat

Emily,

In the next Congress, you can expect to see laws passed by the majority Republicans without a single Democrat voting yes.

That is how our system works- we are a representational Democracy- when the majority of Congress can vote in a law- that becomes the law for all of us.

I am sure I won't like some of the laws passed by the Republican Congress- but I won't be pretending that they didn't do it legally.

Especially with Constitutionalists, Syriusly,
NO they should know better than to pass biased laws
that violate beliefs of others.

Free market health care is fine for those who believe in that and agree to support it.
For those who believe in going through govt for singlepayer health care,
that is an equal political belief people have equal right to exercise if they fund it themselves as well!

So why not set up both tracks and let taxpayers vote, pay and organize under
the programs as they believe in setting up their ways. Health care is supposed to
remain a private choice, so let people choose!

Name a law that's been ruled biased in your lifetime. Not your opinion, but factually ruled upon. Healthcare mandating has been ruled on and ruled as NOT BIASED!!!!

Some examples:
* DOMA was ruled unconstitutional, which you argue was only in parts.

In general, the bans against gay marriage are biased
but these are expressed in OTHER terms when it comes to legal arguments.

* Roe v wade found abortion bans unconstitutional because of "substantive due process"
which was phrased as "right to privacy" ie pursuing defense would cause imposition by govt in
the person's private life before finding guilt so the process itself would be a violation.

In general the arguments for right to life are FAITH BASED, so those get rejected
even though the arguments in legal and written process may differ and not say it that way.

* some funding for ACA was struck down as NOT properly authorized by Congress.
the commerce clause argument was struck down, and Justice Roberts had to change
the interpretation to a TAX in order to argue that federal govt had the right to impose a tax bill.

[the mandate requiring business owners like Hobby Lobby to provide abortifacients
they opposed religiously was struck down and recognized those owners equal
rights to defend their beliefs similar to religious organizations arguing for the same.]

The SPIRIT of the laws is different Sneekin
I see you want to stick to "letter of the law" arguments,
but I'm talking about the WHOLE PROCESS IN GENERAL.

NOTE: I'm NOT TRYING to BYPASS or IGNORE the literal process.
I'm saying if we work out conflicts and ag re ements in SPIRIT FIRST
by AGREEING on principles we want to ENFORCE,
then the LETTER of the laws and process FOLLOW FROM THAT AGREEMENT.

I am trying to reach a resolution first BEFORE using the "literal process that'
govt goes through" to REFLECT and REPRESENT that agreement in policy.

Does this make sense?

I'm NOT trying to deny, avoid, ignore or reinvent the literal govt process,
where I am trying to reform the approach is working with people
directly **BEFORE going into the govt process** so we agree **in advance**
what laws or reforms to pursue and how to best write/structure them
where people AGREE they represent everyone and don't cause problems or rejection.

 

[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. The reps in Congress (legislative)
and the President (executive) who voted yes and passed it were
ALL DEMOCRATS.

The Republicans voted NO..

The Texs Democratic Party platform openly sat

Emily,

In the next Congress, you can expect to see laws passed by the majority Republicans without a single Democrat voting yes.

That is how our system works- we are a representational Democracy- when the majority of Congress can vote in a law- that becomes the law for all of us.

I am sure I won't like some of the laws passed by the Republican Congress- but I won't be pretending that they didn't do it legally.

Especially with Constitutionalists, Syriusly,
NO they should know better than to pass biased laws
that violate beliefs of others.!

Virtually every law violates the belief of someone.

You may not like our system of government, but ACA was legally put into effect- just as every law for at least the next two years that President Trump signs.

Even if those laws violate my beliefs.

Dear Syriusly you have the right to AGREE to accommodate
things that otherwise violate or exclude your beliefs.
Many Buddhists and atheists don't go around suing to remove crosses from public buildings.
Many people who don't believe in gays getting married or in gay pride parades,
tolerate this. Many peace activists opposed to war agree to fund military defense anyway.
People who don't believe in executions tolerate that, while others protest and demand reform.

Just because YOU don't have a problem with a cross on a building
doesn't give YOU the right to FORCE this on an atheist who DOES
believe in enforcing the *principle* of removing faith based references from public institutions.