Gay marriage is not a constitutional right

[emilynghiem]

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

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

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

Dear peabody
There are many young conservatives as there are young progressives.
Are you counting only what you see portrayed in the media?

And even if you say the liberal progressives outnumber the conservatives,
well so are LGBT a tiny minority, a fraction of the population, yet they have
demanded representation and got more from the Democrats than Blacks have gotten
who have suffered a long history and waited in line a lot longer to see that represented.

Native Americans are also a minority, are you saying their interests and representation doesn't count because
they are outnumbered?

 

[emilynghiem]

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

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

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

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

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?

Dear Sneekin
the problem here is we don't agree that political beliefs count equally as religious beliefs.
clearly if LGBT or if atheists have fewer numbers than Christians,
that doesn't give anyone the right to ABUSE govt to impose "majority beliefs" on the minority of other beliefs.

the problem is you don't see LGBT as faith based beliefs
equally as the opposing beliefs.

Because I do frame them equally as beliefs, I argue that laws
should protect BOTH from infringement by the OTHER
instead of govt siding with one and defending it and penalizing the other.

Do you agree that is where you and I disagree on this?
You only respect the defense of one side, the LGBT from "religious infringement" by the other.
While I recognize beliefs of both sides, and argue NEITHER should abuse govt to infringe on each other!

NOTE: Again I do understand that by literal laws and precedence,
more people interpret religious freedom to mean how YOU argue.
Again, my point is to formulate a consensus among people outside govt FIRST,
form solutions and how to WORD and structure these reforms so all sides AGREE
they solve the problems, BEFORE taking this to govt to GO THROUGH THE PROCESS.

it is not to supercede it, or bypass or divert, but it is to FACILITATE
the process of reform by agreeing first among the public
and then seeking representation and process through govt to REFLECT
that agreement on policy and solutions so there is no rejection or argument that
something is unconstitutional to thwart the process. if we all agree in advance,
we write better laws that we agree to enforce without these issues!

it IS using the process, but forming agreements in advance to make sure it goes through smoothly with no obstruction
rejection or division if all conflicts are resolved first so the law is well constructed and troubleshot beforehand. Thanks!

 

[emilynghiem]

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?

BECAUSE Sneekin
a. if we don't address and agree how to handle the root cause,
it will happen over and over with the NEXT bill and the NEXT bill.
Conservatives do not believe in giving federal govt more such power,
and liberals do not believe in denying rights due to beliefs of others.
So this wil continue, the same objections to health care and to marriage
because of states rights vs. federal govt, over and over

b. Cruz and conservatives are not a done deal either.
If they remove ACA mandates, it has to be replaced with something else
or else those people aren't represented either!
so we STILL have to work out agreed alternatives.
That's why I suggest dividing and offering equal choices by party.
Let people figure it out on their own what they want to support,
and give them the OPTION to organize it through PARTY so
they can have collective representation on a national level.without
imposing their system on the other groups and vice versa.

c. this same solution of separate tracks would solve BOTH problems
differences in BELIEFS over health care AND marriage.
so why not solve several problems at once?
again see Code of Ethics on the most efficient and economical
means of getting tasks accomplished.

Instead of fighting back and forth endlessly over liberal beliefs
about depending on govt and conservative beliefs on limiting govt,
allow both tracks. And then where these intersect in Agreement,
that can be public policy. but where they disagree , keep them separate!
just like equal religious groups that anyone can join, fund and participate in freely.

Thanks Sneekin!

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

. Liberals already won the battle over social issues,

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

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

1) young people grow up and become conservative/libertarian
2) gay is not mentioned in Constitution and how can it rule on gay marriage??

 

[peabody]

. Liberals already won the battle over social issues,

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

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

1) young people grow up and become conservative/libertarian
2) gay is not mentioned in Constitution and how can it rule on gay marriage??

1) Keith Richards and Iggy Pop are not conservative/libertarian
2) I doesn't matter if it's not in the constitution. Scotus can still rule on it.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

1) Keith Richards and Iggy Pop are not conservative/libertarian
.

and??????????????? think before you post

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

2) I doesn't matter if it's not in the constitution. Scotus can still rule on it.

then they can rule on anything and should be thrown out for treason and liberalism. NOw do you understand why liberals spied for Stalin and elected Barry?

 

[peabody]

1) Keith Richards and Iggy Pop are not conservative/libertarian
.

and??????????????? think before you post

And older people don't necessarily grow conservative. You don't get that?

 

[peabody]

2) I doesn't matter if it's not in the constitution. Scotus can still rule on it.

then they can rule on anything and should be thrown out for treason and liberalism. NOw do you understand why liberals spied for Stalin and elected Barry?

Conspiracy nut

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

1) Keith Richards and Iggy Pop are not conservative/libertarian
.

and??????????????? think before you post

And older people don't necessarily grow conservative. You don't get that?

dear, nobody so they do "necessarily" grow conservative. 1+1=2

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

2) I doesn't matter if it's not in the constitution. Scotus can still rule on it.

then they can rule on anything and should be thrown out for treason and liberalism. NOw do you understand why liberals spied for Stalin and elected Barry?

Conspiracy nut

what conspiracy are you talking about?

 

[peabody]

2) I doesn't matter if it's not in the constitution. Scotus can still rule on it.

then they can rule on anything and should be thrown out for treason and liberalism. NOw do you understand why liberals spied for Stalin and elected Barry?

Conspiracy nut

what conspiracy are you talking about?

I don't know. I just ran out of arguments so I threw that out there. I was going to go with racist but I decided on conspiracy nut

 

[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.

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?

It most certainly is constitutional. Read the decision. End of Discussion and OFF TOPIC.

 

[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.

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!

Not the way it works, and still off topic.

 

[Sneekin]

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.

Please stay on topic. This is my last response to you on any topic other than gay marriage

 

[Syriusly]

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.

And once again- I will point out- it is not possible to find a compromise that everyone will agree to.

States chose to reject both marriages and civil partnerships. Now it has been established that we are all eligible for marriage- there is no longer a choice that needs to be made.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

2) I doesn't matter if it's not in the constitution. Scotus can still rule on it.

then they can rule on anything and should be thrown out for treason and liberalism. NOw do you understand why liberals spied for Stalin and elected Barry?

Conspiracy nut

what conspiracy are you talking about?

I don't know. I just ran out of arguments so I threw that out there. I was going to go with racist but I decided on conspiracy nut

where would a liberal be if he could not play the race card? They played it on Trump!!!

 

[Sneekin]

2) I doesn't matter if it's not in the constitution. Scotus can still rule on it.

then they can rule on anything and should be thrown out for treason and liberalism. NOw do you understand why liberals spied for Stalin and elected Barry?

Conspiracy nut

what conspiracy are you talking about?

I don't know. I just ran out of arguments so I threw that out there. I was going to go with racist but I decided on conspiracy nut

where would a liberal be if he could not play the race card? They played it on Trump!!!

Not a liberal here, just educated. No one plays the race card - if you're a racist, we call you out on it. Trump made several dozen racist comments and lots of religious hate speech as well. Do we call it your normal republican speak?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Trump made several dozen racist comments

if so why so afraid to present the best example to us? What do you learn from your fear?

 

[Sneekin]

Trump made several dozen racist comments

if so why so afraid to present the best example to us? What do you learn from your fear?

Listen, TROLLBOY, you never asked, so you never got any. Why do you fear the truth so much? Why are you so afraid of factual evidence? Give us your full name and address, and I'll be more than happy to provide you with the name of a mental health expert that will help you with your feelings of inadequacy. Yes, Trump made several dozen. Didn't anyone ever teach you to research, or do you learn when you go back to primary school? It's so easy, even you "should" be able to do it. Maybe, if you crawl up out of the basement, you can ask your mommy for some help using the internet.

Here's a couple, boy, to tide you over:

1) In May, Trump implied that Gonzalo Curiel, the federal judge presiding over a class action against the for-profit Trump University, could not fairly hear the case because of his Mexican heritage. “He’s a Mexican,” Trump told CNN of Curiel. “We’re building a wall between here and Mexico. The answer is, he is giving us very unfair rulings — rulings that people can’t even believe.” In fact, TROLL, Curiel is an American citizen who was born in Indiana. And as a prosecutor in the late 1990s, he went after Mexican drug cartels, making him a target for assassination by a Tijuana drug lord.

2) When asked whether he would trust a Muslim judge, in light of his proposed restrictions on Muslim immigration, Trump suggested that such a judge might not be fair to him either.

3) The Justice Department sued his company ― twice ― for not renting to black people. In 1973, the Justice Department sued the company for alleged racial discrimination against black people looking to rent apartments in Brooklyn, Queens and Staten Island. The lawsuit charged that the company quoted different rental terms and conditions to black rental candidates than it did with white candidates, and that the company lied to black applicants about apartments not being available. Trump called those accusations “absolutely ridiculous” and sued the Justice Department for $100 million in damages for defamation. Trump Management Corporation settled the original lawsuit two years later and promised not to discriminate against black people, Puerto Ricans or other minorities. Trump also agreed to send weekly vacancy lists for his 15,000 apartments to the New York Urban League, a civil rights group, and to allow the NYUL to present qualified applicants for vacancies in certain Trump properties. Just three years after that, the Justice Department sued the Trump Management Corporation again for allegedly discriminating against black applicants by telling them apartments weren’t available.

4) Not just blacks, but Jews as well: Trump disparaged his black casino employees as “lazy” in vividly bigoted terms, according to a 1991 book by John O’Donnell, former president of Trump Plaza Hotel and Casino. "When Donald and Ivana came to the casino, the bosses would order all the black people off the floor.” “And isn’t it funny. I’ve got black accountants at Trump Castle and Trump Plaza. Black guys counting my money! I hate it,” O’Donnell recalled Trump saying. “The only kind of people I want counting my money are short guys that wear yarmulkes every day.”

5) Anti-Muslim and Anti-Middle Easterner: Khizr Khan, the father of the late Army Captain Humayun Khan, spoke out against Trump’s bigoted rhetoric and disregard for civil liberties at the National Convention on July 28. It quickly became the most memorable moment of the convention. “Let me ask you, have you even read the U.S. Constitution?” Khan asked Trump before pulling a copy of the document from his jacket pocket and holding it up. “I will gladly lend you my copy,” he declared. In response to the devastating speech, Trump seized on Ghazala Khan’s silence to insinuate that she was forbidden from speaking due to the couple’s Islamic faith. “If you look at his wife, she was standing there. She had nothing to say. She probably, maybe she wasn’t allowed to have anything to say. You tell me,” Trump said in an interview with ABC News that first appeared on July 30. Ghazala Khan explained in an op-ed in the Washington Post the following day that she could not speak because of grief over her son. “Walking onto the convention stage, with a huge picture of my son behind me, I could hardly control myself. What mother could?”

Do you need more examples of racism? Which race? He has the backing of the KKK. I'm sure by default that means he has your backing.