Gods Own Party Can’t Get Over Same Sex Marriage

[TheProgressivePatriot]

You know what's ironic with what you posted? Before gay marriage was legal, I was listening to a radio station and they were interviewing the President of the Concerned Women of America....and this president stated that if gay marriage became legal, women would divorce their husbands in droves in order to marry each other.

Yeah. Real funny.. NOW --- they will lose DECADES of special treatment in the legalities of marriage and favoritism in the eyes of the law. Good luck with OPENING UP the definition of marriage.

All in favor of gay pairings. Need to be called something else because under the law as it is NOW -- it IS something else.. I had said change one letter to Parriage. What I meant to suggest as the proper term for all the legalities is actually PAIR-RIAGE. Actually need TWO letters to change.

you also then. Answer the question to Bode above. Yes or No...

OK, I'll play. I did not answer it before because it made no sense, and still makes no sense , in the context of this topic. But know, I do not want to see protections for women overturned or diminished in any way.

Now YOU answer my question. WHAT DOES SAME SEX MARRIGE AND WHAT WE CALL IT HAVE TO DO WITH THE VAWA?

If you have to ask WHY the VAWA has EVERYTHING TO DO with stuffing gender-free associations into the current legal term marriage -- the problem isn't MINE --- it's yours. And the VAWA act is just one example of GENDER SPECIFIC laws pertaining to marriage. They will all be overturned and die unless a separate legal terminology is adopted. Only a matter of death by a thousand law suits.

I really wish I knew what the hell you talking about. The reason that I don't know, and cant know is because you're speaking in generalities and not giving specific examples of how this "problem" that I do believe you invented, actually has manifested itself in the real world since marriage equality. Give it a try......how are women less safe? How is the VAWA less effective or meaningful. ?

 

[flacaltenn]

Yeah. Real funny.. NOW --- they will lose DECADES of special treatment in the legalities of marriage and favoritism in the eyes of the law. Good luck with OPENING UP the definition of marriage.

All in favor of gay pairings. Need to be called something else because under the law as it is NOW -- it IS something else.. I had said change one letter to Parriage. What I meant to suggest as the proper term for all the legalities is actually PAIR-RIAGE. Actually need TWO letters to change.

you also then. Answer the question to Bode above. Yes or No...

OK, I'll play. I did not answer it before because it made no sense, and still makes no sense , in the context of this topic. But know, I do not want to see protections for women overturned or diminished in any way.

Now YOU answer my question. WHAT DOES SAME SEX MARRIGE AND WHAT WE CALL IT HAVE TO DO WITH THE VAWA?

If you have to ask WHY the VAWA has EVERYTHING TO DO with stuffing gender-free associations into the current legal term marriage -- the problem isn't MINE --- it's yours. And the VAWA act is just one example of GENDER SPECIFIC laws pertaining to marriage. They will all be overturned and die unless a separate legal terminology is adopted. Only a matter of death by a thousand law suits.

I really wish I knew what the hell you talking about. The reason that I don't know, and cant know is because you're speaking in generalities and not giving specific examples of how this "problem" that I do believe you invented, actually has manifested itself in the real world since marriage equality. Give it a try......how are women less safe? How is the VAWA less effective or meaningful. ?

Can't BE more specific than telling you that marriage law is currently VERY Gender specific. By DEMANDING it include non-Gender specific couplings, you will undo a lot of special concessions to married women under the law. VAWA is just ONE example of that undoing.

I understand your confusion. You've probably not heard this argument before. Most hot-headed single-issue zealots' heads just explode when you hit them with facts and situations they never took the time to research or consider. Happens all the time when zealots meet reality based problem solvers.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

you also then. Answer the question to Bode above. Yes or No...

OK, I'll play. I did not answer it before because it made no sense, and still makes no sense , in the context of this topic. But know, I do not want to see protections for women overturned or diminished in any way.

Now YOU answer my question. WHAT DOES SAME SEX MARRIGE AND WHAT WE CALL IT HAVE TO DO WITH THE VAWA?

If you have to ask WHY the VAWA has EVERYTHING TO DO with stuffing gender-free associations into the current legal term marriage -- the problem isn't MINE --- it's yours. And the VAWA act is just one example of GENDER SPECIFIC laws pertaining to marriage. They will all be overturned and die unless a separate legal terminology is adopted. Only a matter of death by a thousand law suits.

I really wish I knew what the hell you talking about. The reason that I don't know, and cant know is because you're speaking in generalities and not giving specific examples of how this "problem" that I do believe you invented, actually has manifested itself in the real world since marriage equality. Give it a try......how are women less safe? How is the VAWA less effective or meaningful. ?

Can't BE more specific than telling you that marriage law is currently VERY Gender specific. By DEMANDING it include non-Gender specific couplings, you will undo a lot of special concessions to married women under the law. VAWA is just ONE example of that undoing.

I understand your confusion. You've probably not heard this argument before. Most hot-headed single-issue zealots' heads just explode when you hit them with facts and situations they never took the time to research or consider. Happens all the time when zealots meet reality based problem solvers.

My head is absolutely not exploding because I have not heard anything that makes any sense. you're still just speaking in generalities. Convince me that you're not just making this shit up. Show me some actual problems that have resulted from marriage equality.

 

[Nosmo King]

Just as they have been working to water down Roe v. Wade , with restrictions on abortion, they continue to concern themselves with another, more recent decision, Obergfelle v Hodges which made same sex marriage the law of the land.

They are obsessed with people private lives and social issues, while purporting to be the party of freedom and individual responsibility.

While the country is facing numerous threats and problems both foreign and domestic, they can’t keep their noses out of people’s bedrooms. While they are hell bent on allowing Wall Street to run amok, and letting corporations pollute the planet, women, gays and other who they disapprove of must be tightly controlled.

While they are not actively seeking to overturn Obergefell- that know that even with a conservative SCOTUS- it would be a long road to hoe. So as with Roe, they are finding ways to water down the gains that have been made with respect to choice, privacy, and equality. Consider:

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/opinion-signorile-georgia-adoption_us_5a9c23e7e4b0a0ba4ad45681

Georgia is on its way to creating a law that would allow state-funded adoption agencies to turn away LGBTQ couples ― or, more specifically, to turn away any parents the agencies don’t approve of based on religious beliefs.

Make no mistake: This anti-LGBTQ adoption bill is part of a wide-reaching plan by religious conservatives ― backed by President Donald Trump and his administration ― to turn same-sex marriage into second-class marriage with a longer-term goal of overturning federal marriage rights for gays and lesbians entirely.

Adoption is only one of several fronts on which they are attacking:

By getting courts to rule that wedding-related businesses can turn away gay couples based on the business owners’ religious beliefs, by allowing governments to refuse to give the same benefits to spouses within same-sex marriages as they do to those within opposite-sex marriages, and by allowing adoption agencies to say no to LGBTQ parents.

I

t is really in those three major areas- adoption, public accommodation, and benefits- that equality is being assailed. I do not believe for a Nano second that this is about religion or religious freedom. It’s about bigotry-plain and simple. It is not about concern for the children either. It is about bigotry.

Furthermore, in the Huston Texas case where the Texas Supreme Court rules that married same sex couples on the city payroll were not necessarily entitle to employee benefits is clearly bigotry because it has nothing to do with religion and clearly is harmful to the children of those couples.

Is that what God would want? These issues, along wth the myriad of so call "bathroom bills " aimed at trans people make it clear that the GOP is hell bent on making life as difficult as possible for LGBT people in order to appease the religious right.

It's an abomination to the Lord

/thread

Thus Sayeth the Christian Taliban.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

You know what's ironic with what you posted? Before gay marriage was legal, I was listening to a radio station and they were interviewing the President of the Concerned Women of America....and this president stated that if gay marriage became legal, women would divorce their husbands in droves in order to marry each other.

Yeah. Real funny.. NOW --- they will lose DECADES of special treatment in the legalities of marriage and favoritism in the eyes of the law. Good luck with OPENING UP the definition of marriage.

All in favor of gay pairings. Need to be called something else because under the law as it is NOW -- it IS something else.. I had said change one letter to Parriage. What I meant to suggest as the proper term for all the legalities is actually PAIR-RIAGE. Actually need TWO letters to change.

you also then. Answer the question to Bode above. Yes or No...

OK, I'll play. I did not answer it before because it made no sense, and still makes no sense , in the context of this topic. But know, I do not want to see protections for women overturned or diminished in any way.

Now YOU answer my question. WHAT DOES SAME SEX MARRIGE AND WHAT WE CALL IT HAVE TO DO WITH THE VAWA?

If you have to ask WHY the VAWA has EVERYTHING TO DO with stuffing gender-free associations into the current legal term marriage -- the problem isn't MINE --- it's yours. And the VAWA act is just one example of GENDER SPECIFIC laws pertaining to marriage. They will all be overturned and die unless a separate legal terminology is adopted. Only a matter of death by a thousand law suits.

PS How many law suits have been filed ? What are they about. What year was Obergefell? What year is it now?

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Gay marriage is marriage. Legal marriage.

That is no more true nor rational than declaring that two plus two equals ten. Even if you could get a law passed that declares that two plus two equals ten, it would remain a falsehood.

Corrupting the law to treat a blatant falsehood as reality only undermines the rule of law.

 

[flacaltenn]

Yeah. Real funny.. NOW --- they will lose DECADES of special treatment in the legalities of marriage and favoritism in the eyes of the law. Good luck with OPENING UP the definition of marriage.

All in favor of gay pairings. Need to be called something else because under the law as it is NOW -- it IS something else.. I had said change one letter to Parriage. What I meant to suggest as the proper term for all the legalities is actually PAIR-RIAGE. Actually need TWO letters to change.

you also then. Answer the question to Bode above. Yes or No...

OK, I'll play. I did not answer it before because it made no sense, and still makes no sense , in the context of this topic. But know, I do not want to see protections for women overturned or diminished in any way.

Now YOU answer my question. WHAT DOES SAME SEX MARRIGE AND WHAT WE CALL IT HAVE TO DO WITH THE VAWA?

If you have to ask WHY the VAWA has EVERYTHING TO DO with stuffing gender-free associations into the current legal term marriage -- the problem isn't MINE --- it's yours. And the VAWA act is just one example of GENDER SPECIFIC laws pertaining to marriage. They will all be overturned and die unless a separate legal terminology is adopted. Only a matter of death by a thousand law suits.

PS How many law suits have been filed ? What are they about. What year was Obergefell? What year is it now?

Already myriad court struggles been highlighted about "shoehorning" decisions on gay marriage issues into law that was written for gender SPECIFIC coupling. And most of them I'm aware of -- married hetero women got whacked in the panties. As courts discover that in able to be EQUAL about decisions and sentencing, there can be no preferences or allowances or advantages for married hetero women as the courts have been instructed and custom to using. This is just one serious side effect of commandeering the ONE term marriage for all types of non-gender specific coupling. This is NOT about "separate but equal", but it's about writing BETTER law that uses the correct terminology and not WRECKING existing legal precedent and law.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

you also then. Answer the question to Bode above. Yes or No...

OK, I'll play. I did not answer it before because it made no sense, and still makes no sense , in the context of this topic. But know, I do not want to see protections for women overturned or diminished in any way.

Now YOU answer my question. WHAT DOES SAME SEX MARRIGE AND WHAT WE CALL IT HAVE TO DO WITH THE VAWA?

If you have to ask WHY the VAWA has EVERYTHING TO DO with stuffing gender-free associations into the current legal term marriage -- the problem isn't MINE --- it's yours. And the VAWA act is just one example of GENDER SPECIFIC laws pertaining to marriage. They will all be overturned and die unless a separate legal terminology is adopted. Only a matter of death by a thousand law suits.

PS How many law suits have been filed ? What are they about. What year was Obergefell? What year is it now?

Already myriad court struggles been highlighted about "shoehorning" decisions on gay marriage issues into law that was written for gender SPECIFIC coupling. And most of them I'm aware of -- married hetero women got whacked in the panties. As courts discover that in able to be EQUAL about decisions and sentencing, there can be no preferences or allowances or advantages for married hetero women as the courts have been instructed and custom to using. This is just one serious side effect of commandeering the ONE term marriage for all types of non-gender specific coupling. This is NOT about "separate but equal", but it's about writing BETTER law that uses the correct terminology and not WRECKING existing legal precedent and law.

Oh Shit! Really?. What is this? Looks like just another lugubrious chicken little type of rant full of vague generalities but actually saying nothing. NOTHING AT ALL.

Lets do this:

1LIST THE LAW SUITS with links documenting the " myriad court struggles been highlighted about "shoehorning" decisions on gay marriage issues into law that was written for gender SPECIFIC coupling"

2. LIST AND REFERENCE the instances where courts have found that "there can be no preferences or allowances or advantages for married hetero women "

3. EXPLAIN, USING SPECIFIC EXAMPLES, how the use of ONE term marriage for all types of non-gender specific coupling.is wrecking existing legal precedent and law.

If you cannot do that much, you will be written off as the hysterical crackpot that I suspect you to be. Or you can take this opportunity to teach us all something and see if you can really make my head explode.

 

[emilynghiem]

you also then. Answer the question to Bode above. Yes or No...

OK, I'll play. I did not answer it before because it made no sense, and still makes no sense , in the context of this topic. But know, I do not want to see protections for women overturned or diminished in any way.

Now YOU answer my question. WHAT DOES SAME SEX MARRIGE AND WHAT WE CALL IT HAVE TO DO WITH THE VAWA?

If you have to ask WHY the VAWA has EVERYTHING TO DO with stuffing gender-free associations into the current legal term marriage -- the problem isn't MINE --- it's yours. And the VAWA act is just one example of GENDER SPECIFIC laws pertaining to marriage. They will all be overturned and die unless a separate legal terminology is adopted. Only a matter of death by a thousand law suits.

I really wish I knew what the hell you talking about. The reason that I don't know, and cant know is because you're speaking in generalities and not giving specific examples of how this "problem" that I do believe you invented, actually has manifested itself in the real world since marriage equality. Give it a try......how are women less safe? How is the VAWA less effective or meaningful. ?

Can't BE more specific than telling you that marriage law is currently VERY Gender specific. By DEMANDING it include non-Gender specific couplings, you will undo a lot of special concessions to married women under the law. VAWA is just ONE example of that undoing.

I understand your confusion. You've probably not heard this argument before. Most hot-headed single-issue zealots' heads just explode when you hit them with facts and situations they never took the time to research or consider. Happens all the time when zealots meet reality based problem solvers.

My head is absolutely not exploding because I have not heard anything that makes any sense. you're still just speaking in generalities. Convince me that you're not just making this shit up. Show me some actual problems that have resulted from marriage equality.

Dearest TheProgressivePatriot
That's like asking what harm is caused by schools mandating school prayer for everyone. The prayers and good they have been shown to do are not the issue, but the FREE CHOICE.

Christianity and Christian healing prayer in particular can save lives and end addictions, abuse, disease and social ills; but not by forcing this on anyone. It only causes rejection. It only works when freely chosen.

Same sex marriage is not the root conflict per se but ramming it through govt without consent and free choice of people is!
For example, lots of people (and I've heard this from Conservatives, Christians and even gay people who don't support states endorsing same sex marriage) have NO PROBLEM with people having same sex marriage in their own churches or organizations, but just NOT forcing this through the state on everyone else to have to endorse unless they agree democratically first.

Isn't that similar to allowing students in schools to choose and engage in prayer, but not have the schools or administrators involved in these decisions, so it remains free choice. It is NOT a school function.
The only thing the State of Texas implemented was a neutral "moment of silence" that people agreed to as a compromise.

So the equivalent here would be if people of a STATE agree to neutral policy such as civil unions or domestic partnerships, where people COULD CHOOSE to have gay relations with their domestic partners and that's their private business. But anyone can set up a financial and legal agreements to operate as a partnership or share a household.

I will ask YOU the same thing you ask flacaltenn
What harm is caused by allowing EVERYONE to have civil unions or partnership contracts through the state that are NEUTRAL.

What harm is caused by having people set up and manage their own benefits under their own terms, and organize collectively over statewide or national groups, so everyone can choose and access benefits and resources under the beliefs of their choice?

Wouldn't the benefits outweigh the complications of separating social policies programs and choices from federalized govt bureaucracy?

I'm thinking that separation is the best way to stop endless bickering and fights over control of policy and resources, and give everyone EQUAL representation and protection of the laws (especially protection from the beliefs of other people in conflict).

Is there any proof such a separation would cause more harm than good, if we've never tried it?

Thanks TPP you keep fighting the good fight.
In the end, we will all end up on the same page,
but bringing all the experience from different approaches to the table.

I'm not against same sex marriage, but for the best way to establish the free and equal choice where it doesn't interfere with the equal beliefs of anyone else. You forget that Constitutionalists and Libertarians believe in keeping ALL marriage out of the govt in the first place. So YES it is causing harm by infringing on the beliefs and free choice of Americans who are supposed to be equally protected under law from establishment of beliefs, especially that violate our own.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

OK, I'll play. I did not answer it before because it made no sense, and still makes no sense , in the context of this topic. But know, I do not want to see protections for women overturned or diminished in any way.

Now YOU answer my question. WHAT DOES SAME SEX MARRIGE AND WHAT WE CALL IT HAVE TO DO WITH THE VAWA?

If you have to ask WHY the VAWA has EVERYTHING TO DO with stuffing gender-free associations into the current legal term marriage -- the problem isn't MINE --- it's yours. And the VAWA act is just one example of GENDER SPECIFIC laws pertaining to marriage. They will all be overturned and die unless a separate legal terminology is adopted. Only a matter of death by a thousand law suits.

I really wish I knew what the hell you talking about. The reason that I don't know, and cant know is because you're speaking in generalities and not giving specific examples of how this "problem" that I do believe you invented, actually has manifested itself in the real world since marriage equality. Give it a try......how are women less safe? How is the VAWA less effective or meaningful. ?

Can't BE more specific than telling you that marriage law is currently VERY Gender specific. By DEMANDING it include non-Gender specific couplings, you will undo a lot of special concessions to married women under the law. VAWA is just ONE example of that undoing.

I understand your confusion. You've probably not heard this argument before. Most hot-headed single-issue zealots' heads just explode when you hit them with facts and situations they never took the time to research or consider. Happens all the time when zealots meet reality based problem solvers.

My head is absolutely not exploding because I have not heard anything that makes any sense. you're still just speaking in generalities. Convince me that you're not just making this shit up. Show me some actual problems that have resulted from marriage equality.

Dearest TheProgressivePatriot
That's like asking what harm is caused by schools mandating school prayer for everyone. The prayers and good they have been shown to do are not the issue, but the FREE CHOICE.

Christianity and Christian healing prayer in particular can save lives and end addictions, abuse, disease and social ills; but not by forcing this on anyone. It only causes rejection. It only works when freely chosen.

Same sex marriage is not the root conflict per se but ramming it through govt without consent and free choice of people is!
For example, lots of people (and I've heard this from Conservatives, Christians and even gay people who don't support states endorsing same sex marriage) have NO PROBLEM with people having same sex marriage in their own churches or organizations, but just NOT forcing this through the state on everyone else to have to endorse unless they agree democratically first.

Isn't that similar to allowing students in schools to choose and engage in prayer, but not have the schools or administrators involved in these decisions, so it remains free choice. It is NOT a school function.
The only thing the State of Texas implemented was a neutral "moment of silence" that people agreed to as a compromise.

So the equivalent here would be if people of a STATE agree to neutral policy such as civil unions or domestic partnerships, where people COULD CHOOSE to have gay relations with their domestic partners and that's their private business. But anyone can set up a financial and legal agreements to operate as a partnership or share a household.

I will ask YOU the same thing you ask flacaltenn
What harm is caused by allowing EVERYONE to have civil unions or partnership contracts through the state that are NEUTRAL.

What harm is caused by having people set up and manage their own benefits under their own terms, and organize collectively over statewide or national groups, so everyone can choose and access benefits and resources under the beliefs of their choice?

Wouldn't the benefits outweigh the complications of separating social policies programs and choices from federalized govt bureaucracy?

I'm thinking that separation is the best way to stop endless bickering and fights over control of policy and resources, and give everyone EQUAL representation and protection of the laws (especially protection from the beliefs of other people in conflict).

Is there any proof such a separation would cause more harm than good, if we've never tried it?

Thanks TPP you keep fighting the good fight.
In the end, we will all end up on the same page,
but bringing all the experience from different approaches to the table.

I'm not against same sex marriage, but for the best way to establish the free and equal choice where it doesn't interfere with the equal beliefs of anyone else. You forget that Constitutionalists and Libertarians believe in keeping ALL marriage out of the govt in the first place. So YES it is causing harm by infringing on the beliefs and free choice of Americans who are supposed to be equally protected under law from establishment of beliefs, especially that violate our own.

We have been down this road way too many times. Give it a rest. You people need to STOP trying to fix what is not broken

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

These bastards are still at it!

read:Nearly Two Dozen Senators Reintroduce Anti-Gay 'Religious Freedom' Bill Trump Has Said He'll Sign

22 Republican U.S. Senators are co-sponsoring the reintroduction of a bill they claim is needed to "protect" the religious freedom of those who oppose same-sex marriage and sexual relations outside of one-man, one-woman marriage. The First Amendment Defense Act (FADA) was originally introduced in 2015 by Utah Republican Senator Mike Lee, one of the first federal lawmakers to endorse Roy Moore for the U.S. Senate. (Lee later rescinded his support.)

Senators Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio are among the co-sponsors. President Trump has said he would sign the bill.

This is a sickness, it is an obsession, and it is a bastardization of religious freedom. It is also time a resources taken away from real problems that the country faces.

And, if passed, discrimination against ANYONE who has sex outside of marriage will be permissible! How does that set with you folks? How about Mr. T-Rump?

Here's the beginning of the bill's text:
To ensure that the Federal Government shall not take any discriminatory action against a person, wholly or partially on the basis that such person speaks, or acts, in accordance with a sincerely held religious belief or moral conviction that marriage is or should be recognized as a union of one man and one woman, or two individuals as recognized under Federal law, or that sexual relations outside marriage are improper."

 

[Tilly]

These bastards are still at it!

read:Nearly Two Dozen Senators Reintroduce Anti-Gay 'Religious Freedom' Bill Trump Has Said He'll Sign

22 Republican U.S. Senators are co-sponsoring the reintroduction of a bill they claim is needed to "protect" the religious freedom of those who oppose same-sex marriage and sexual relations outside of one-man, one-woman marriage. The First Amendment Defense Act (FADA) was originally introduced in 2015 by Utah Republican Senator Mike Lee, one of the first federal lawmakers to endorse Roy Moore for the U.S. Senate. (Lee later rescinded his support.)

Senators Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio are among the co-sponsors. President Trump has said he would sign the bill.

This is a sickness, it is an obsession, and it is a bastardization of religious freedom. It is also time a resources taken away from real problems that the country faces.

And, if passed, discrimination against ANYONE who has sex outside of marriage will be permissible! How does that set with you folks? How about Mr. T-Rump?

Here's the beginning of the bill's text:
To ensure that the Federal Government shall not take any discriminatory action against a person, wholly or partially on the basis that such person speaks, or acts, in accordance with a sincerely held religious belief or moral conviction that marriage is or should be recognized as a union of one man and one woman, or two individuals as recognized under Federal law, or that sexual relations outside marriage are improper."

Great news! Thanks for posting it!

 

[emilynghiem]

If you have to ask WHY the VAWA has EVERYTHING TO DO with stuffing gender-free associations into the current legal term marriage -- the problem isn't MINE --- it's yours. And the VAWA act is just one example of GENDER SPECIFIC laws pertaining to marriage. They will all be overturned and die unless a separate legal terminology is adopted. Only a matter of death by a thousand law suits.

I really wish I knew what the hell you talking about. The reason that I don't know, and cant know is because you're speaking in generalities and not giving specific examples of how this "problem" that I do believe you invented, actually has manifested itself in the real world since marriage equality. Give it a try......how are women less safe? How is the VAWA less effective or meaningful. ?

Can't BE more specific than telling you that marriage law is currently VERY Gender specific. By DEMANDING it include non-Gender specific couplings, you will undo a lot of special concessions to married women under the law. VAWA is just ONE example of that undoing.

I understand your confusion. You've probably not heard this argument before. Most hot-headed single-issue zealots' heads just explode when you hit them with facts and situations they never took the time to research or consider. Happens all the time when zealots meet reality based problem solvers.

My head is absolutely not exploding because I have not heard anything that makes any sense. you're still just speaking in generalities. Convince me that you're not just making this shit up. Show me some actual problems that have resulted from marriage equality.

Dearest TheProgressivePatriot
That's like asking what harm is caused by schools mandating school prayer for everyone. The prayers and good they have been shown to do are not the issue, but the FREE CHOICE.

Christianity and Christian healing prayer in particular can save lives and end addictions, abuse, disease and social ills; but not by forcing this on anyone. It only causes rejection. It only works when freely chosen.

Same sex marriage is not the root conflict per se but ramming it through govt without consent and free choice of people is!
For example, lots of people (and I've heard this from Conservatives, Christians and even gay people who don't support states endorsing same sex marriage) have NO PROBLEM with people having same sex marriage in their own churches or organizations, but just NOT forcing this through the state on everyone else to have to endorse unless they agree democratically first.

Isn't that similar to allowing students in schools to choose and engage in prayer, but not have the schools or administrators involved in these decisions, so it remains free choice. It is NOT a school function.
The only thing the State of Texas implemented was a neutral "moment of silence" that people agreed to as a compromise.

So the equivalent here would be if people of a STATE agree to neutral policy such as civil unions or domestic partnerships, where people COULD CHOOSE to have gay relations with their domestic partners and that's their private business. But anyone can set up a financial and legal agreements to operate as a partnership or share a household.

I will ask YOU the same thing you ask flacaltenn
What harm is caused by allowing EVERYONE to have civil unions or partnership contracts through the state that are NEUTRAL.

What harm is caused by having people set up and manage their own benefits under their own terms, and organize collectively over statewide or national groups, so everyone can choose and access benefits and resources under the beliefs of their choice?

Wouldn't the benefits outweigh the complications of separating social policies programs and choices from federalized govt bureaucracy?

I'm thinking that separation is the best way to stop endless bickering and fights over control of policy and resources, and give everyone EQUAL representation and protection of the laws (especially protection from the beliefs of other people in conflict).

Is there any proof such a separation would cause more harm than good, if we've never tried it?

Thanks TPP you keep fighting the good fight.
In the end, we will all end up on the same page,
but bringing all the experience from different approaches to the table.

I'm not against same sex marriage, but for the best way to establish the free and equal choice where it doesn't interfere with the equal beliefs of anyone else. You forget that Constitutionalists and Libertarians believe in keeping ALL marriage out of the govt in the first place. So YES it is causing harm by infringing on the beliefs and free choice of Americans who are supposed to be equally protected under law from establishment of beliefs, especially that violate our own.

We have been down this road way too many times. Give it a rest. You people need to STOP trying to fix what is not broken

^ Exactly what people are saying about LGBT trying to change bathroom policies ^
NOW you get it TheProgressivePatriot
Just apply that same wisdom equally across the board, and we're on the same page!

 

[emilynghiem]

These bastards are still at it!

read:Nearly Two Dozen Senators Reintroduce Anti-Gay 'Religious Freedom' Bill Trump Has Said He'll Sign

22 Republican U.S. Senators are co-sponsoring the reintroduction of a bill they claim is needed to "protect" the religious freedom of those who oppose same-sex marriage and sexual relations outside of one-man, one-woman marriage. The First Amendment Defense Act (FADA) was originally introduced in 2015 by Utah Republican Senator Mike Lee, one of the first federal lawmakers to endorse Roy Moore for the U.S. Senate. (Lee later rescinded his support.)

Senators Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio are among the co-sponsors. President Trump has said he would sign the bill.

This is a sickness, it is an obsession, and it is a bastardization of religious freedom. It is also time a resources taken away from real problems that the country faces.

And, if passed, discrimination against ANYONE who has sex outside of marriage will be permissible! How does that set with you folks? How about Mr. T-Rump?

Here's the beginning of the bill's text:
To ensure that the Federal Government shall not take any discriminatory action against a person, wholly or partially on the basis that such person speaks, or acts, in accordance with a sincerely held religious belief or moral conviction that marriage is or should be recognized as a union of one man and one woman, or two individuals as recognized under Federal law, or that sexual relations outside marriage are improper."

The "bastardation" of the First Amendment is mutual TheProgressivePatriot
The liberals have long used or abused the First Amendment to claim
protection from beliefs or expressions of others, such as Christian prayer instigated in schools.

But when it comes to endorsing same sex marriage
and recognizing the faith based belief in transgender or homosexual orientation as "natural"
suddenly THOSE beliefs aren't a free choice but must be mandated
"by govt" and even penalize others for not believing or not complying!!!

When the shoe is on the other foot, the liberals DISCRIMINATE by creed.
It's "okay" to push liberal beliefs through govt, just not tolerate or include others!

Can't argue one side TheProgressivePatriot
without arguing the other.

Both sides have their own BELIEFS
and last I checked the govt was NOT supposed to allow discrimination by creed.

If it's WRONG to impose Christian prayer on nonbelievers through public schools and govt
it's WRONG to impose beliefs in gay marriage or faith based choice of expression and transgender orientation

TheProgressivePatriot
if liberals and LGBT argue for INCLUSION of same sex and transgender belief expression and practice,
then isn't it fair to open the door for Christian prayer, spiritual healing, and other faith based
beliefs and expressions in public schools and institutions?

Shouldn't all creeds be treated equally under law?
Instead of endorsing one, rejecting the other, and penalizing
people of the other belief?

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

I really wish I knew what the hell you talking about. The reason that I don't know, and cant know is because you're speaking in generalities and not giving specific examples of how this "problem" that I do believe you invented, actually has manifested itself in the real world since marriage equality. Give it a try......how are women less safe? How is the VAWA less effective or meaningful. ?

Can't BE more specific than telling you that marriage law is currently VERY Gender specific. By DEMANDING it include non-Gender specific couplings, you will undo a lot of special concessions to married women under the law. VAWA is just ONE example of that undoing.

I understand your confusion. You've probably not heard this argument before. Most hot-headed single-issue zealots' heads just explode when you hit them with facts and situations they never took the time to research or consider. Happens all the time when zealots meet reality based problem solvers.

My head is absolutely not exploding because I have not heard anything that makes any sense. you're still just speaking in generalities. Convince me that you're not just making this shit up. Show me some actual problems that have resulted from marriage equality.

Dearest TheProgressivePatriot
That's like asking what harm is caused by schools mandating school prayer for everyone. The prayers and good they have been shown to do are not the issue, but the FREE CHOICE.

Christianity and Christian healing prayer in particular can save lives and end addictions, abuse, disease and social ills; but not by forcing this on anyone. It only causes rejection. It only works when freely chosen.

Same sex marriage is not the root conflict per se but ramming it through govt without consent and free choice of people is!
For example, lots of people (and I've heard this from Conservatives, Christians and even gay people who don't support states endorsing same sex marriage) have NO PROBLEM with people having same sex marriage in their own churches or organizations, but just NOT forcing this through the state on everyone else to have to endorse unless they agree democratically first.

Isn't that similar to allowing students in schools to choose and engage in prayer, but not have the schools or administrators involved in these decisions, so it remains free choice. It is NOT a school function.
The only thing the State of Texas implemented was a neutral "moment of silence" that people agreed to as a compromise.

So the equivalent here would be if people of a STATE agree to neutral policy such as civil unions or domestic partnerships, where people COULD CHOOSE to have gay relations with their domestic partners and that's their private business. But anyone can set up a financial and legal agreements to operate as a partnership or share a household.

I will ask YOU the same thing you ask flacaltenn
What harm is caused by allowing EVERYONE to have civil unions or partnership contracts through the state that are NEUTRAL.

What harm is caused by having people set up and manage their own benefits under their own terms, and organize collectively over statewide or national groups, so everyone can choose and access benefits and resources under the beliefs of their choice?

Wouldn't the benefits outweigh the complications of separating social policies programs and choices from federalized govt bureaucracy?

I'm thinking that separation is the best way to stop endless bickering and fights over control of policy and resources, and give everyone EQUAL representation and protection of the laws (especially protection from the beliefs of other people in conflict).

Is there any proof such a separation would cause more harm than good, if we've never tried it?

Thanks TPP you keep fighting the good fight.
In the end, we will all end up on the same page,
but bringing all the experience from different approaches to the table.

I'm not against same sex marriage, but for the best way to establish the free and equal choice where it doesn't interfere with the equal beliefs of anyone else. You forget that Constitutionalists and Libertarians believe in keeping ALL marriage out of the govt in the first place. So YES it is causing harm by infringing on the beliefs and free choice of Americans who are supposed to be equally protected under law from establishment of beliefs, especially that violate our own.

We have been down this road way too many times. Give it a rest. You people need to STOP trying to fix what is not broken

^ Exactly what people are saying about LGBT trying to change bathroom policies ^
NOW you get it TheProgressivePatriot
Just apply that same wisdom equally across the board, and we're on the same page!

Wrong Emily.Trans People did not try to change " bathroom policies " until the right wingers started to explicitly exclude them from using the bathroom of their gender identity. Trans people were probably doing just that for a long time but then they were targeted by the hysterical bigots . Bet that you have been in a stall next to a transwoman more than once and never knew it. Bathrooms did not need fixing anymore that marriage needs fixing.

 

[jillian]

Just as they have been working to water down Roe v. Wade , with restrictions on abortion, they continue to concern themselves with another, more recent decision, Obergfelle v Hodges which made same sex marriage the law of the land.

They are obsessed with people private lives and social issues, while purporting to be the party of freedom and individual responsibility.

While the country is facing numerous threats and problems both foreign and domestic, they can’t keep their noses out of people’s bedrooms. While they are hell bent on allowing Wall Street to run amok, and letting corporations pollute the planet, women, gays and other who they disapprove of must be tightly controlled.

While they are not actively seeking to overturn Obergefell- that know that even with a conservative SCOTUS- it would be a long road to hoe. So as with Roe, they are finding ways to water down the gains that have been made with respect to choice, privacy, and equality. Consider:

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/opinion-signorile-georgia-adoption_us_5a9c23e7e4b0a0ba4ad45681

Georgia is on its way to creating a law that would allow state-funded adoption agencies to turn away LGBTQ couples ― or, more specifically, to turn away any parents the agencies don’t approve of based on religious beliefs.

Make no mistake: This anti-LGBTQ adoption bill is part of a wide-reaching plan by religious conservatives ― backed by President Donald Trump and his administration ― to turn same-sex marriage into second-class marriage with a longer-term goal of overturning federal marriage rights for gays and lesbians entirely.

Adoption is only one of several fronts on which they are attacking:

By getting courts to rule that wedding-related businesses can turn away gay couples based on the business owners’ religious beliefs, by allowing governments to refuse to give the same benefits to spouses within same-sex marriages as they do to those within opposite-sex marriages, and by allowing adoption agencies to say no to LGBTQ parents.

I

t is really in those three major areas- adoption, public accommodation, and benefits- that equality is being assailed. I do not believe for a Nano second that this is about religion or religious freedom. It’s about bigotry-plain and simple. It is not about concern for the children either. It is about bigotry.

Furthermore, in the Huston Texas case where the Texas Supreme Court rules that married same sex couples on the city payroll were not necessarily entitle to employee benefits is clearly bigotry because it has nothing to do with religion and clearly is harmful to the children of those couples.

Is that what God would want? These issues, along wth the myriad of so call "bathroom bills " aimed at trans people make it clear that the GOP is hell bent on making life as difficult as possible for LGBT people in order to appease the religious right.

Pretend Christians are like that. But there have always been some who pretend jesus loves bigots.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

The "bastardation" of the First Amendment is mutual TheProgressivePatriot
The liberals have long used or abused the First Amendment to claim
protection from beliefs or expressions of others, such as Christian prayer instigated in schools.

Wrong ! It is well understood and widely accepted that government -INCLUDING PUBLIC SCHOOLS- may not sponsor, endorse or promote religion. I am talking about something entirely different. I am talking about the practice of using religion as a weapon to promote an agenda and an excuse to discriminate

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

But when it comes to endorsing same sex marriage
and recognizing the faith based belief in transgender or homosexual orientation as "natural"
suddenly THOSE beliefs aren't a free choice but must be mandated
"by govt" and even penalize others for not believing or not complying!!!

It is absurd to claim that government -through legislation or the courts has any interest in shaping what people believe . In addition , being LGBT is not a belief- simply put it is what people are, For those that reason, trying to tie LGBT issues to the first amendment is absurd . The governments only concern is to ensure that all people are treated equally under the ,are afforded dues process , and are not subject to capricious and arbitrary discrimination. In other words it all about how we are treated by those in position of power, as well as by other individuals. To those who can't deal with the concept of treating other as you wish to be treated. TO DAMND BAD

 

[jillian]

Can't BE more specific than telling you that marriage law is currently VERY Gender specific. By DEMANDING it include non-Gender specific couplings, you will undo a lot of special concessions to married women under the law. VAWA is just ONE example of that undoing.

I understand your confusion. You've probably not heard this argument before. Most hot-headed single-issue zealots' heads just explode when you hit them with facts and situations they never took the time to research or consider. Happens all the time when zealots meet reality based problem solvers.

My head is absolutely not exploding because I have not heard anything that makes any sense. you're still just speaking in generalities. Convince me that you're not just making this shit up. Show me some actual problems that have resulted from marriage equality.

Dearest TheProgressivePatriot
That's like asking what harm is caused by schools mandating school prayer for everyone. The prayers and good they have been shown to do are not the issue, but the FREE CHOICE.

Christianity and Christian healing prayer in particular can save lives and end addictions, abuse, disease and social ills; but not by forcing this on anyone. It only causes rejection. It only works when freely chosen.

Same sex marriage is not the root conflict per se but ramming it through govt without consent and free choice of people is!
For example, lots of people (and I've heard this from Conservatives, Christians and even gay people who don't support states endorsing same sex marriage) have NO PROBLEM with people having same sex marriage in their own churches or organizations, but just NOT forcing this through the state on everyone else to have to endorse unless they agree democratically first.

Isn't that similar to allowing students in schools to choose and engage in prayer, but not have the schools or administrators involved in these decisions, so it remains free choice. It is NOT a school function.
The only thing the State of Texas implemented was a neutral "moment of silence" that people agreed to as a compromise.

So the equivalent here would be if people of a STATE agree to neutral policy such as civil unions or domestic partnerships, where people COULD CHOOSE to have gay relations with their domestic partners and that's their private business. But anyone can set up a financial and legal agreements to operate as a partnership or share a household.

I will ask YOU the same thing you ask flacaltenn
What harm is caused by allowing EVERYONE to have civil unions or partnership contracts through the state that are NEUTRAL.

What harm is caused by having people set up and manage their own benefits under their own terms, and organize collectively over statewide or national groups, so everyone can choose and access benefits and resources under the beliefs of their choice?

Wouldn't the benefits outweigh the complications of separating social policies programs and choices from federalized govt bureaucracy?

I'm thinking that separation is the best way to stop endless bickering and fights over control of policy and resources, and give everyone EQUAL representation and protection of the laws (especially protection from the beliefs of other people in conflict).

Is there any proof such a separation would cause more harm than good, if we've never tried it?

Thanks TPP you keep fighting the good fight.
In the end, we will all end up on the same page,
but bringing all the experience from different approaches to the table.

I'm not against same sex marriage, but for the best way to establish the free and equal choice where it doesn't interfere with the equal beliefs of anyone else. You forget that Constitutionalists and Libertarians believe in keeping ALL marriage out of the govt in the first place. So YES it is causing harm by infringing on the beliefs and free choice of Americans who are supposed to be equally protected under law from establishment of beliefs, especially that violate our own.

We have been down this road way too many times. Give it a rest. You people need to STOP trying to fix what is not broken

^ Exactly what people are saying about LGBT trying to change bathroom policies ^
NOW you get it TheProgressivePatriot
Just apply that same wisdom equally across the board, and we're on the same page!

Wrong Emily.Trans People did not try to change " bathroom policies " until the right wingers started to explicitly exclude them from using the bathroom of their gender identity. Trans people were probably doing just that for a long time but then they were targeted by the hysterical bigots . Bet that you have been in a stall next to a transwoman more than once and never knew it. Bathrooms did not need fixing anymore that marriage needs fixing.

white Christian supremacist bigots want to see transwomen beat up, so if they force them into a men's room, they get their opportunity

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

BT

When the shoe is on the other foot, the liberals DISCRIMINATE by creed.
It's "okay" to push liberal beliefs through govt, just not tolerate or include others!

Can't argue one side TheProgressivePatriot
without arguing the other.

Both sides have their own BELIEFS
and last I checked the govt was NOT supposed to allow discrimination by creed.

Again, it is not about beliefs. That is where you seem to be hung up. Liberals do not give a rats hind parts about anyones beliefs, but right wingers sure seem to concern themselves about it a lot.