I find it very disturbing

[LoneLaugher]

That the threads that get the most posts are the ones on gays. I guess that issue divides the US like no other issue. There are very strong feelings on both sides, and both sides sometimes make good arguments.

The only way to resolve it is to let the people speak by voting. We need either a national referendum on gay marriage or a constitutional amendment on it. Let the people decide and lets all live by that decision.

We don't vote on rights. We are not a direct democracy. Our Constitution was set up to protect the rights of the minority.

But James Madison warned against the minority controlling the majority, or factionalism. Read Federalist #10 if you want more.

You have no idea what "faction" is.

 

[emilynghiem]

Marriage is a sacrament

In your church. Not in the law. And gay marriage is about the law. Equal protection of. Government cash and prizes.

Wake up.

g5000 it depends how the law is written if this is made clear and neutral enough to avoid bias one way or the other.
the process should be open and decided by consensus to avoid imposing on people's beliefs.
If the issue is public perception and interpretation, that can be resolved as well. But by inclusion, not bullying by majority rule
or political party or court order.

 

[emilynghiem]

That the threads that get the most posts are the ones on gays. I guess that issue divides the US like no other issue. There are very strong feelings on both sides, and both sides sometimes make good arguments.

The only way to resolve it is to let the people speak by voting. We need either a national referendum on gay marriage or a constitutional amendment on it. Let the people decide and lets all live by that decision.

We don't vote on rights. We are not a direct democracy. Our Constitution was set up to protect the rights of the minority.

But James Madison warned against the minority controlling the majority, or factionalism. Read Federalist #10 if you want more.

You have no idea what "faction" is.

We don't even agree what constitutes a protected "belief or creed" under free exercise of religion (including if secular beliefs
count equally as religions)
and whether contracts and laws should be formed by "consent of the governed", how that is determined,
and where it is still unconstitutional even if govt processes are used to decide a policy issue.

So of course we are divided into factions.
You can even see that here.

 

[Skylar]

Marriage is a sacrament, and the leftist douchebags can't force us to pretend it isn't, nor can they force us to endorse homo marriage.

So atheists can't get married, Allie?

bodecea anyone can get married under their own terms in private.

if marriages are going to be in public laws, then all people in that state need to agree on the terms of marriage or write the laws neutrally to avoid conflict. or else keep marriage private if people can't agree on public policies.

The process working its way through the courts is to determine this common meaning. A meaning consistent with constitutional guarantees.

Skylar if the lawyers didn't argue in Court the ACA mandates violated Constitutional beliefs
and discriminated against creed, and they don't defend BOTH beliefs equally on both sides of the marriage issues,
then this isn't even being addressed. So of course the Courts keep taking one side over the other
and not addressing the fact that both are equally protected beliefs.

What is the 'other side' of the marriage issue that the court isn't addressing?

 

[koshergrl]

Here's the thing..they moved heaven and earth to declare that they could get married in the eyes of the state..and now they expect us to act like it's the same as a sacrament.

Isn't going to happen. It's not the same, and we cannot treat it the same.

 

[Coloradomtnman]

Here's the thing..they moved heaven and earth to declare that they could get married in the eyes of the state..and now they expect us to act like it's the same as a sacrament.

Isn't going to happen. It's not the same, and we cannot treat it the same.

Gay people don't care if you think they are married, they only care if the government does.

You, personally, don't have to accept same sex marriage. You just don't get to force that one others.

 

[PratchettFan]

Marriage is a sacrament, and the leftist douchebags can't force us to pretend it isn't, nor can they force us to endorse homo marriage.

"sacrament"

No its not. Saying that is just plain silly and ignorant.

Oh wait - its koshergrl

I still want to know when.the state decided to get back in religion?

When they decided to start shutting down businesses that won't cater sacrilegious homo *wedding* ceremonies.

Ya wanna just make a list of those YOU believe should have to abide by the law?

Luddly Neddite
If Atheists can remove the word GOD from public institutions
because of conflicting beliefs, why not remove Marriage if people can't agree on terms.

If you are trying to FORCE @koshrgrl to "change her terms or definition associated with marriage"
why not FORCE the Atheist "not to think about the word GOD to mean something religious
but FORCE the Atheist to interpret the word God to mean LIFE or PUBLIC GOOD
or some other meaning.

Do you honestly believe it is the authority of govt and public law to FORCE
people to change their religious views of marriage?

Isn't this a huge SIGN that marriage should be kept OUT of public policy
similar to God and Crosses that are seen as religious?

No one is forcing her to change anything. She can believe that only marriages performed by leprechauns are valid, if that is what makes her happy. So long as this is a legal issue controlled by the state, it should be available to all citizens.

If you want to remove that from the control of the government, then that means it removes all benefits of marriage. You have best make sure you have you will in place because your spouse won't be your spouse under the law.

 

[PratchettFan]

Marriage is a sacrament, and the leftist douchebags can't force us to pretend it isn't, nor can they force us to endorse homo marriage.

So atheists can't get married, Allie?

bodecea anyone can get married under their own terms in private.

if marriages are going to be in public laws, then all people in that state need to agree on the terms of marriage or write the laws neutrally to avoid conflict. or else keep marriage private if people can't agree on public policies.

No. It means that all people are entitled to the same benefits, not what the majority decides at a given time.

 

[emilynghiem]

Marriage is a sacrament, and the leftist douchebags can't force us to pretend it isn't, nor can they force us to endorse homo marriage.

So atheists can't get married, Allie?

bodecea anyone can get married under their own terms in private.

if marriages are going to be in public laws, then all people in that state need to agree on the terms of marriage or write the laws neutrally to avoid conflict. or else keep marriage private if people can't agree on public policies.

The process working its way through the courts is to determine this common meaning. A meaning consistent with constitutional guarantees.

Skylar if the lawyers didn't argue in Court the ACA mandates violated Constitutional beliefs
and discriminated against creed, and they don't defend BOTH beliefs equally on both sides of the marriage issues,
then this isn't even being addressed. So of course the Courts keep taking one side over the other
and not addressing the fact that both are equally protected beliefs.

What is the 'other side' of the marriage issue that the court isn't addressing?

Beliefs for and against same sex marriage are not treated as equally protected beliefs or creeds.
If they were, there would have to be a consensus on how laws are written to make sure they
are neutral and/or equally inclusive and don't offend or discriminate against anyone's beliefs.

If conflicting parties are still fighting legally and going to court, that means the law was not written neutrally.
If I were a judge, I would order the parties in that state to rewrite the laws, mediating all conflicts and resolving all objections, until there is a consensus so it can pass and protect represent and include all beliefs equally.

If people are objecting or pushing something objectionable without correcting the cause of the objection/conflict,
those people can give input into the process but cannot have deciding powers.
The decision must be made by facilitating and including all the sides, and the process should be moderated
by people who will ensure all grievances, objections and conflicts are addressed so nobody's beliefs are overruled.

 

[PratchettFan]

That the threads that get the most posts are the ones on gays. I guess that issue divides the US like no other issue. There are very strong feelings on both sides, and both sides sometimes make good arguments.

The only way to resolve it is to let the people speak by voting. We need either a national referendum on gay marriage or a constitutional amendment on it. Let the people decide and lets all live by that decision.

This disturbs me....

White House Task Force Wants Obama to Change Thanksgiving to Celebrate Immigrants Day via Executive Order Restoring Liberty

Being blatantly lied to should disturb you.

 

[emilynghiem]

Marriage is a sacrament, and the leftist douchebags can't force us to pretend it isn't, nor can they force us to endorse homo marriage.

"sacrament"

No its not. Saying that is just plain silly and ignorant.

Oh wait - its koshergrl

I still want to know when.the state decided to get back in religion?

When they decided to start shutting down businesses that won't cater sacrilegious homo *wedding* ceremonies.

Ya wanna just make a list of those YOU believe should have to abide by the law?

Luddly Neddite
If Atheists can remove the word GOD from public institutions
because of conflicting beliefs, why not remove Marriage if people can't agree on terms.

If you are trying to FORCE @koshrgrl to "change her terms or definition associated with marriage"
why not FORCE the Atheist "not to think about the word GOD to mean something religious
but FORCE the Atheist to interpret the word God to mean LIFE or PUBLIC GOOD
or some other meaning.

Do you honestly believe it is the authority of govt and public law to FORCE
people to change their religious views of marriage?

Isn't this a huge SIGN that marriage should be kept OUT of public policy
similar to God and Crosses that are seen as religious?

No one is forcing her to change anything. She can believe that only marriages performed by leprechauns are valid, if that is what makes her happy. So long as this is a legal issue controlled by the state, it should be available to all citizens.

If you want to remove that from the control of the government, then that means it removes all benefits of marriage. You have best make sure you have you will in place because your spouse won't be your spouse under the law.

PratchettFan SURE if that's what it takes to treat people equally,
then the benefits should be reverted to private programs.

The secular law should handle civil contracts like custody, property, and estates that are secular issues,
but personal relationships can only be under public laws if people agree to the terms, because that is PERSONAL.

So if people CANNOT agree then this will have to be separated or removed.
Because I live in Texas, I would suggest separating by party and letting members work out
benefits and policies according to beliefs organized that way to cover each district or the whole state.
start locally, find how to make this work and work up to the state level.
If agreement can be reached across the board, sure, it can be a state law.

Otherwise, with immigration, health benefits, and now this gay marriage issue,
I don't see a consensus except by party. I could even envision a third level of law,
beside civil and criminal that handles separation of policies Constitutionally by party and belief
in order to ensure equal protections but without imposing one group's beliefs over another group.

 

[hortysir]

Guess the OP was right about gay threads getting the most discussion.......

 

[PratchettFan]

Marriage is a sacrament, and the leftist douchebags can't force us to pretend it isn't, nor can they force us to endorse homo marriage.

"sacrament"

No its not. Saying that is just plain silly and ignorant.

Oh wait - its koshergrl

I still want to know when.the state decided to get back in religion?

When they decided to start shutting down businesses that won't cater sacrilegious homo *wedding* ceremonies.

Ya wanna just make a list of those YOU believe should have to abide by the law?

Luddly Neddite
If Atheists can remove the word GOD from public institutions
because of conflicting beliefs, why not remove Marriage if people can't agree on terms.

If you are trying to FORCE @koshrgrl to "change her terms or definition associated with marriage"
why not FORCE the Atheist "not to think about the word GOD to mean something religious
but FORCE the Atheist to interpret the word God to mean LIFE or PUBLIC GOOD
or some other meaning.

Do you honestly believe it is the authority of govt and public law to FORCE
people to change their religious views of marriage?

Isn't this a huge SIGN that marriage should be kept OUT of public policy
similar to God and Crosses that are seen as religious?

No one is forcing her to change anything. She can believe that only marriages performed by leprechauns are valid, if that is what makes her happy. So long as this is a legal issue controlled by the state, it should be available to all citizens.

If you want to remove that from the control of the government, then that means it removes all benefits of marriage. You have best make sure you have you will in place because your spouse won't be your spouse under the law.

PratchettFan SURE if that's what it takes to treat people equally,
then the benefits should be reverted to private programs.

The secular law should handle civil contracts like custody, property, and estates that are secular issues,
but personal relationships can only be under public laws if people agree to the terms, because that is PERSONAL.

So if people CANNOT agree then this will have to be separated or removed.
Because I live in Texas, I would suggest separating by party and letting members work out
benefits and policies according to beliefs organized that way to cover each district or the whole state.
start locally, find how to make this work and work up to the state level.
If agreement can be reached across the board, sure, it can be a state law.

Otherwise, with immigration, health benefits, and now this gay marriage issue,
I don't see a consensus except by party. I could even envision a third level of law,
beside civil and criminal that handles separation of policies Constitutionally by party and belief
in order to ensure equal protections but without imposing one group's beliefs over another group.

I have a better idea. We have one nation and one law. Ultimate decision power rests with one court. If someone in the country can't live with that, there are lots of airports.

 

[bodecea]

Here's the thing..they moved heaven and earth to declare that they could get married in the eyes of the state..and now they expect us to act like it's the same as a sacrament.

Isn't going to happen. It's not the same, and we cannot treat it the same.

YOU are the one who keeps saying that marriage is only a sacrament.

 

[LoneLaugher]

That the threads that get the most posts are the ones on gays. I guess that issue divides the US like no other issue. There are very strong feelings on both sides, and both sides sometimes make good arguments.

The only way to resolve it is to let the people speak by voting. We need either a national referendum on gay marriage or a constitutional amendment on it. Let the people decide and lets all live by that decision.

We don't vote on rights. We are not a direct democracy. Our Constitution was set up to protect the rights of the minority.

But James Madison warned against the minority controlling the majority, or factionalism. Read Federalist #10 if you want more.

You have no idea what "faction" is.

We don't even agree what constitutes a protected "belief or creed" under free exercise of religion (including if secular beliefs
count equally as religions)
and whether contracts and laws should be formed by "consent of the governed", how that is determined,
and where it is still unconstitutional even if govt processes are used to decide a policy issue.

So of course we are divided into factions.
You can even see that here.

You don't know what Madison meant by the term "faction" either do ya?

 

[TemplarKormac]

Not in the law. And gay marriage is about the law.

That is exactly why marriage is a religious sacrament. The law does not dictate what marriage is or isn't religiously. Religious freedom is covered under the law, too. How easily and conveniently do you forget that.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Ultimate decision power rests with one court. If someone in the country can't live with that, there are lots of airports.

Ultimate decision power rests with the individual.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Ultimate decision power rests with one court. If someone in the country can't live with that, there are lots of airports.

Ultimate decision power rests with the individual.

Sure it does. Like the two gay individuals who want to get married, right?

 

[Igrok_]

This thread doesn't have many posts, so you are wrong.

 

[1stRambo]

That the threads that get the most posts are the ones on gays. I guess that issue divides the US like no other issue. There are very strong feelings on both sides, and both sides sometimes make good arguments.

The only way to resolve it is to let the people speak by voting. We need either a national referendum on gay marriage or a constitutional amendment on it. Let the people decide and lets all live by that decision.

We don't vote on rights. We are not a direct democracy. Our Constitution was set up to protect the rights of the minority.

Yo, ALL REAL AMERICANS, not the abnormal! Back in the day? They would cut their throat!

"GTP"

"OBAMA HATES AMERICA"