I find it very disturbing

[PratchettFan]

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.

Not in terms of the law. You can certainly decided to disobey the law, and accept the consequences of that decision.

 

[koshergrl]

Bad laws should be disobeyed.

 

[PratchettFan]

How about letting state courts decide it, or state elections. To me, its an issue that is not a big deal.

Because it is a constitutional issue.

 

[Skylar]

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.

Um, belief in gay marriage isn't protected. Not legally. Nor is opposition to gay marriage. On the issue of beliefs, the law doesn't have anything to say.

You can believe whatever you want. Now, your ACTIONS are most definitely in the realm of regulation.

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.

That assumes that your belief on someone else's rights is of equal value as their rights. And that's not the case. Your beliefs are personal. They're your opinion. They aren't the basis of someone ELSE's rights. Nor do they limit what rights someone else can exercise.

Rights trump opinions.

If conflicting parties are still fighting legally and going to court, that means the law was not written neutrally.

No it doesn't. That means that two different parties interpret something differently or have different priorities. The winner in the one whose interpretations most closely align with law and precedent. And precedent isn't neutral nor was it ever meant to be.

The entire concept of stare decisis is that current rulings are based on previous rulings. That's not neutral. The idea that no ruling can be influenced by....well....anything that came before it is uselessly unstable. As we could never have a reasonably good idea of the boundaries of the law or the penalties for crossing those boundaries.

Jaywalking could be randomly legal, or carry years in prison....depending on the judge. Abortion could be a constitutionally protected right one day. And capital murder the next. No system of law could operate in this fashion as its too unpredictable and arbitrary. Law requires a ruling authority to break ties or settle disagreements. And a body of law for that ruling authority to draw precedent. Reliability, predictability, and consistency are necessary.

And none of those things are 'neutral'. But well established ahead of time by design.

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.

That's a horrible idea. If someone doesn't want to compromise their rights, what then?

Nor are all beliefs equally valid. If someone believed that say, the earth was flat.....should we take their beliefs that any ship that goes past the horizon will fall off the planet into account when determining maritime law? If someone believes that your home belongs to them and you disagree, do you have to 'come to a consensus' of how much of your home belongs to them now? If a man believes that he should be able to have sex with you...and you disagree, do you 'come to a consensus' on how often he gets to sleep with you?

No.

It wildly empowers any belief, no matter how void of reason or evidence. In fact, it encourages outrageous beliefs, as the more unreasonable and extreme your belief, the more someone has to give up to 'come to a consensus' with you.

Worse, there's way more than 2 parties. There are millions of them. And if by mere belief, you get to rewrite the law, then the law will change several times a day. Nor will the law have any particular meaning. As no matter what it says now, you and another party will be empowered to change it whenever you please.

Its a wildly unstable system. It simply wouldn't work.

 

[Skylar]

Bad laws should be disobeyed.

Then disobey this one and get fined. With much of that fine going to the very couple you discriminated against.

You'd become a funder of gay weddings.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Bad laws should be disobeyed.

If you feel that way, don't marry someone of the same sex.

Whatever THAT is.

 

[Carla_Danger]

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.

And what does it do?...It starts another thread about gay rights. Are you feeling left out?

You don't get to vote Constitutional rights away!

 

[Old Rocks]

Let's persuade our resident Jedi Knights, Guardians of The Realm and Keepers of The Faith to open, start, promote and encourage a gay butt-ranger Board so that all of our libturd friends can go there and participate in reach-arounds ad infinitum.

Problem solved.

Really sound more like a personal problem you have. Most here just think that what happens in the bedroom is the business of the two adults involved, and no one elses. People like you would seek to control others personal lives, and let the corperations create a feudal society.

 

[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.

And nobody is taking that away. You can consider it anything you like. You just can't tell others how they will consider it.

Of course, and I hope that works both ways.

 

[Redfish]

I think what we have is just fine to resolve the issue. It is, in fact, being resolved. It just takes time.

Nope, we are spinning our wheels. Put it to a vote, settle it once and for all.

And we should vote on guns and slavery, too!

guns and slavery are clear in the constitution, gay marriage is not

 

[Redfish]

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.

So...the answer is to start another thread on gays. Lovely.

Only to point out the serious division of the country on this issue. With all of the real problems facing this country and the world. we in the US are obsessed and preoccupied with gay marriage.

I don't understand it. I don't understand why we can't have a vote like we do on most issues and the most votes prevails.

Its not a consittutional issue, its a societal issue. Society should decide by majority vote whether society will sanction gay marriage or not. I am fully willing to abide by the will of the people, are you?

 

[Redfish]

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.

And what does it do?...It starts another thread about gay rights. Are you feeling left out?

You don't get to vote Constitutional rights away!

you don't get to create rights that do not exist.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

If gay marriage is so dangerous and harmful, why would you want the mob to decide whether or not it's legal?

 

[Carla_Danger]

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.

And what does it do?...It starts another thread about gay rights. Are you feeling left out?

You don't get to vote Constitutional rights away!

you don't get to create rights that do not exist.

Obviously those rights do exist, you big dummy.

 

[thereisnospoon]

I think what we have is just fine to resolve the issue. It is, in fact, being resolved. It just takes time.

Tyhat's juts it....The issue is not being resolved. The creation of a politically correct protected class with special rights has already been accomplished. And there is not a chance there will be anything more than tolerance for it.
Do not expect acceptance.

 

[Lakhota]

People are evolving and the issue is being resolved. Bigots and homophobes are kicking and screaming as they are dragged into the 21st century.

 

[thereisnospoon]

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.

If gay marriage is so dangerous and harmful, why would you want the mob to decide whether or not it's legal?

One could ask the same question regarding your side's ultra opposition to all things Christian....While non Christian, Muslim in particular, gets a hall pass.
The Christian and Jewish religions have been a favored target of the left for years now..As far as you are concerned, it is perfectly reasonable and acceptable to insult and impugn these two groups.
So please, don't ask questions like the one you asked in the above post.

 

[thereisnospoon]

People are evolving and the issue is being resolved. Bigots and homophobes are kicking and screaming as they are dragged into the 21st century.

Try responding with something original. Denial is not a defense.
People are evolving....What the hell is that supposed to mean?
Oh....And I neither oppose nor support gay marriage.
Quite frankly, I could not care less.
In fact I say let them have at it....Only an irrational person would welcome something that has a 55% chance of failure. Let them deal with the arguing, fighting, who left the towel on the floor in the bathroom, how come the lawn did not get mowed, why the car didn't get washed, who is in charge of making sure the bills get paid, joint bank accounts, who contributes more to the household financially, who contributes to the relationship emotionally.
Go ahead...Have at it. Don't say you were't warned.
Poster Howie left a post a few weeks back he could finally get married to his partner. I wished him well and God Speed. He is a liberal but he also seems like a pretty good fellow..he has not been back in a while. I wonder if that marriage thingy has already placed a burden on his free time......UGH....

 

[Carla_Danger]

People are evolving and the issue is being resolved. Bigots and homophobes are kicking and screaming as they are dragged into the 21st century.

Try responding with something original. Denial is not a defense.
People are evolving....What the hell is that supposed to mean?

Once you make it over the hump and can walk upright, we'll explain it to you.

 

[dblack]

... On the issue of beliefs, the law doesn't have anything to say.

You can believe whatever you want. Now, your ACTIONS are most definitely in the realm of regulation.

This is exactly how it should be. Discrimination laws, however, have everything to do with the opinions of those doing the discriminating. It's not the mere action of refusing service to someone that is illegal. It's the opinions of the person making that decision that makes it illegal.

That assumes that your belief on someone else's rights is of equal value as their rights. And that's not the case. Your beliefs are personal. They're your opinion. They aren't the basis of someone ELSE's rights. Nor do they limit what rights someone else can exercise.

Rights trump opinions.

Indeed they do. But no one's rights are being violated when they are refused service. Laws dictating who we must serve or hire, and for what reasons, however, do violate fundamental the fundamental freedoms of a conscience and association.