"..Marriage has always been between a man and a woman."

[KevinWestern]

The First Amendment prohibits religious belief from becoming US law. This is known as "the separation of church and state". Not everyone believes your religion so it is not "freedom" to impose your religious views on members of the general public through legislation. Why is this so difficult to understand?

Well, technically the idea is that you can't favor a single religion - specifically - in law and have that trump the democratic opinion. However, if the society is made up of 100 people and 75 are Christian and hold the "belief" - via influence from the bible - that marriage should only be man/woman, and they vote to keep it that way, I think that is still OK.

Do I agree with it? Of course not, I think any two consenting adults should be able to marry if they want. However, you need to remember that the bible can influence the opinion of a group just as a science textbook might influence the opinion of another. We can't "forbid" that from happening.

Writing a law based on a Bible passage which defines marriage as only between a man and a woman in order to discriminate against tens of thousands of gay and lesbian couples is in direct violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution. So the question stands, "Do Teabaggers want to abolish the First Amendment in order to push through their religious laws?"

I don't think the argument is completely Biblical. I think it's more or less "traditionalists" (people who want to keep things as they were) vs. "progressives" (people who want to expand something to include a new group).

 

[martybegan]

The OP only works if Hillary is still against gay marriage. Otherwise it's a lame attempt at character assignation.

Wha?

Also Hillary was never really against gay marriage, she lied to make herself more palatable to the electorate.

 

[Pop23]

The bumper sticker is about slavery, not marriage.

Get it?

Marriage is a contract between two consenting adults, one does not consent to ones own slavery.

Try again, the desperation you show is nothing less than amusing.

 

[KNB]

The 1st amendment forbids the establishment of a national religion, and adherence to said religion. it does nothing to ban people from seeking laws based on their belief structure.

Evidently progressives want to force people to accept their moral code.

The First Amendment prohibits religious belief from becoming US law. This is known as "the separation of church and state". Not everyone believes your religion so it is not "freedom" to impose your religious views on members of the general public through legislation. Why is this so difficult to understand?

Writing a law based on a Bible passage which defines marriage as only between a man and a woman in order to discriminate against tens of thousands of gay and lesbian couples is in direct violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution. So the question stands, "Do Teabaggers want to abolish the First Amendment in order to push through their religious laws?"

You are so wrong it is not even funny. Prohibitions on Murder and stealing are in the bible, so I guess laws against both are 1st amendment violations. By your logic they are and must be repealed.

The reason for a law means nothing when it comes to the constitution, the intent is all that matters. If someone passed a law requiring you tithe or join a certain church, THAT would be a 1st amendment violation. Passing a law saying the contract of marriage is defined as one man one woman does not violate the 1st amendment at all.

Evidently progressives want to abolish the 1st amendment via public accommodation laws, but that is another debate.

Our laws against murder and stealing are based on the violation of the rights of others, not the Bible. The Bible does not dictate US law because of the First Amendment. In what way does passing a law based solely on a Bible passage not violate the separation of church and state?

What is your opposition to gay marriage besides the Bible?

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Funny how some get fired and publicly ridiculed, yet others simply get instantly forgiven and supported. All depends on which side of the political fence you're standing on.

While I have no issues with gays tying the knot, I am forever amazed at the hypocrisy on the left when it comes to whose feet they hold to the fire. The CEO donated money to let his opinion be heard. Fair enough, as that is how it works here in America. Debate openly and let the people vote and decide. However, the Clintons were against gay marriage and legislation was passed that made their opinion law without another vote by the people.

“If it is unconscionable to support a company whose CEO once donated to the cause against marriage equality, why is it not unconscionable to support a candidate who opposed marriage equality as recently as 2008, and who was an integral part of an administration that embraced the Defense Of Marriage Act, signed into law by Bill Clinton?”

“How do you weigh the relative impact of a president strongly backing DOMA – even running ads touting his support for it in the South – and an executive who spent $1000 for an anti-marriage equality Proposition?”

Who said this?

"Marriage has a historic, religious and moral context that goes back to the beginning of time. And I think a marriage has always been between a man and a woman.”

Why, it is Hillary Clinton, of course. I wish the liberals here would react to that statement on it's own merit, but they will look at the author of the quote and go easy on her. And Obama didn't "evolve" on the issue until Biden opened his mouth and said that Obama supported it. Once that was out and the entire gay community was paying attention, Obama had little choice but to claim he evolved, apparently overnight. I found that evolution of his completely disingenuous.


What Do Hillary Clinton & Booted Mozilla CEO Have in Common When it Comes to Traditional Marriage?

If you are part of the "tribe" then you are allowed to lie to make sure you get elected/supported. The left knows their side supports gay marriage, but they worried that part of their caucus, i.e. religious minorities would be offended. Now that they know it isn't impacting their vote base, they are free to reveal the position they held all along.

Progressives lie to get elected. Why is anyone shocked by this?

lying is called 'tacquia' in Islam.....lying against the enemy is considered a duty and a right....

their ideology also comes before First Amendment rights as well....one cannot blaspheme...

funny how liberalism resembles a religion....unfortunately a backward one...

 

[KevinWestern]

Our laws against murder and stealing are based on the violation of the rights of others, not the Bible. The Bible does not dictate US law because of the First Amendment. In what way does passing a law based solely on a Bible passage not violate the separation of church and state?

What is your opposition to gay marriage besides the Bible?

To be completely accurate though, the idea that marriage is between a man/woman is "more" than just a biblical principle. It's generally regarded as a "traditional" stance. I know this because many other non-Christian societies (largely of the past) have only recognized male/female unions. You know what I mean?

This isn't a purely biblical discussion.

But again, don't ask me to justify prohibiting gay marriage. I'm for it, completely. I'm just trying to rationalize with both sides of the argument.

 

[Plasmaball]

The OP only works if Hillary is still against gay marriage. Otherwise it's a lame attempt at character assignation.

Wha?

Also Hillary was never really against gay marriage, she lied to make herself more palatable to the electorate.

Ok and....the op is still a fail.

 

[martybegan]

The First Amendment prohibits religious belief from becoming US law. This is known as "the separation of church and state". Not everyone believes your religion so it is not "freedom" to impose your religious views on members of the general public through legislation. Why is this so difficult to understand?

Writing a law based on a Bible passage which defines marriage as only between a man and a woman in order to discriminate against tens of thousands of gay and lesbian couples is in direct violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution. So the question stands, "Do Teabaggers want to abolish the First Amendment in order to push through their religious laws?"

You are so wrong it is not even funny. Prohibitions on Murder and stealing are in the bible, so I guess laws against both are 1st amendment violations. By your logic they are and must be repealed.

The reason for a law means nothing when it comes to the constitution, the intent is all that matters. If someone passed a law requiring you tithe or join a certain church, THAT would be a 1st amendment violation. Passing a law saying the contract of marriage is defined as one man one woman does not violate the 1st amendment at all.

Evidently progressives want to abolish the 1st amendment via public accommodation laws, but that is another debate.

Our laws against murder and stealing are based on the violation of the rights of others, not the Bible. The Bible does not dictate US law because of the First Amendment. In what way does passing a law based solely on a Bible passage not violate the separation of church and state?

What is your opposition to gay marriage besides the Bible?

If voted in by a state legislature then i have no opposition to gay marriage. I oppose the use of courts that create a "right" to gay marriage that does not and has never existed in the Constitution. I also opposed forcing acceptance of gay marriage on people via public accommodation laws.

And again, intent and reason behind a law does not come into play. the action of the law has to be unconstitutional. One can oppose gay marriage based solely on precedent, which is substantial. What the first amendment prevents is the government forcing you from paying for religion, or performing overt religious acts at the behest of the government. it does not prevent laws that are based on religious beliefs that do not fall into the categories above.

 

[KNB]

The First Amendment prohibits religious belief from becoming US law. This is known as "the separation of church and state". Not everyone believes your religion so it is not "freedom" to impose your religious views on members of the general public through legislation. Why is this so difficult to understand?

Well, technically the idea is that you can't favor a single religion - specifically - in law and have that trump the democratic opinion. However, if the society is made up of 100 people and 75 are Christian and hold the "belief" - via influence from the bible - that marriage should only be man/woman, and they vote to keep it that way, I think that is still OK.

Do I agree with it? Of course not, I think any two consenting adults should be able to marry if they want. However, you need to remember that the bible can influence the opinion of a group just as a science textbook might influence the opinion of another. We can't "forbid" that from happening.

No, that isn't okay. The First Amendment was written as it is written specifically to prevent 75 Christians from voting in religious dogma which limits the freedom of the other 25 people. That is the very first rule in the US Constitution. That is why it was written.

Writing a law based on a Bible passage which defines marriage as only between a man and a woman in order to discriminate against tens of thousands of gay and lesbian couples is in direct violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution. So the question stands, "Do Teabaggers want to abolish the First Amendment in order to push through their religious laws?"

I don't think the argument is completely Biblical. I think it's more or less "traditionalists" (people who want to keep things as they were) vs. "progressives" (people who want to expand something to include a new group).

The argument is completely biblical because no one can come up with any other reason to oppose gay marriage.

 

[ClosedCaption]

What is the point OP? Hillary should be fired? Mozilla CEO should run for Potus?

No, to point out the hypocrisy of progressives.

Wheres the hypocrisy? Some guy got fired and you blame progressives with nothing and that shows hypocrisy how?

 

[KNB]

You are so wrong it is not even funny. Prohibitions on Murder and stealing are in the bible, so I guess laws against both are 1st amendment violations. By your logic they are and must be repealed.

The reason for a law means nothing when it comes to the constitution, the intent is all that matters. If someone passed a law requiring you tithe or join a certain church, THAT would be a 1st amendment violation. Passing a law saying the contract of marriage is defined as one man one woman does not violate the 1st amendment at all.

Evidently progressives want to abolish the 1st amendment via public accommodation laws, but that is another debate.

Our laws against murder and stealing are based on the violation of the rights of others, not the Bible. The Bible does not dictate US law because of the First Amendment. In what way does passing a law based solely on a Bible passage not violate the separation of church and state?

What is your opposition to gay marriage besides the Bible?

If voted in by a state legislature then i have no opposition to gay marriage. I oppose the use of courts that create a "right" to gay marriage that does not and has never existed in the Constitution. I also opposed forcing acceptance of gay marriage on people via public accommodation laws.

And again, intent and reason behind a law does not come into play. the action of the law has to be unconstitutional. One can oppose gay marriage based solely on precedent, which is substantial. What the first amendment prevents is the government forcing you from paying for religion, or performing overt religious acts at the behest of the government. it does not prevent laws that are based on religious beliefs that do not fall into the categories above.

The "right" to gay marriage is not denied in the US Constitution, either, so it is a "right" left to the People. If you want to make it a "State's rights" issue then the Federal government has to be involved because if a gay or lesbian couple is married in one state and then move to another state that does not recognize their marriage, there has to be a higher authority to mediate the situation. Since gay marriage is not denied to homosexual and lesbian couples anywhere in the Constitution, you do not have the right to forbid the practice.

 

[martybegan]

The First Amendment prohibits religious belief from becoming US law. This is known as "the separation of church and state". Not everyone believes your religion so it is not "freedom" to impose your religious views on members of the general public through legislation. Why is this so difficult to understand?

Well, technically the idea is that you can't favor a single religion - specifically - in law and have that trump the democratic opinion. However, if the society is made up of 100 people and 75 are Christian and hold the "belief" - via influence from the bible - that marriage should only be man/woman, and they vote to keep it that way, I think that is still OK.

Do I agree with it? Of course not, I think any two consenting adults should be able to marry if they want. However, you need to remember that the bible can influence the opinion of a group just as a science textbook might influence the opinion of another. We can't "forbid" that from happening.

No, that isn't okay. The First Amendment was written as it is written specifically to prevent 75 Christians from voting in religious dogma which limits the freedom of the other 25 people. That is the very first rule in the US Constitution. That is why it was written.

Writing a law based on a Bible passage which defines marriage as only between a man and a woman in order to discriminate against tens of thousands of gay and lesbian couples is in direct violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution. So the question stands, "Do Teabaggers want to abolish the First Amendment in order to push through their religious laws?"

I don't think the argument is completely Biblical. I think it's more or less "traditionalists" (people who want to keep things as they were) vs. "progressives" (people who want to expand something to include a new group).

The argument is completely biblical because no one can come up with any other reason to oppose gay marriage.

"I oppose gay marriage because i have decided that the word marriage implies members of the opposite sex"

If i took that position, it has no reference to any religion whatsoever, thus invalidating your previous point.

A belief that comes from religion is not a poison pill, that invalidates any law made based on it. You continue to misinterpret the 1st amendment, the question is are you doing out of ignorance, stupidity, or willfully.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

The First Amendment prohibits religious belief from becoming US law. This is known as "the separation of church and state". Not everyone believes your religion so it is not "freedom" to impose your religious views on members of the general public through legislation. Why is this so difficult to understand?

Well, technically the idea is that you can't favor a single religion - specifically - in law and have that trump the democratic opinion. However, if the society is made up of 100 people and 75 are Christian and hold the "belief" - via influence from the bible - that marriage should only be man/woman, and they vote to keep it that way, I think that is still OK.

Do I agree with it? Of course not, I think any two consenting adults should be able to marry if they want. However, you need to remember that the bible can influence the opinion of a group just as a science textbook might influence the opinion of another. We can't "forbid" that from happening.

Writing a law based on a Bible passage which defines marriage as only between a man and a woman in order to discriminate against tens of thousands of gay and lesbian couples is in direct violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution. So the question stands, "Do Teabaggers want to abolish the First Amendment in order to push through their religious laws?"

I don't think the argument is completely Biblical. I think it's more or less "traditionalists" (people who want to keep things as they were) vs. "progressives" (people who want to expand something to include a new group).

I don't think anyone or any group is trying to "forbid" others from believing any whackadoodle thing they want. But, no matter what else, we must continue to fight against sharia law and that's what the anti-equality people want - laws against equality based on their own self-serving interpretation of 2000 year old fiction.

They can believe what they want. They just cant force the rest of us to live as they do. Just as gays cannot force the rest of us to marry others of the same sex.

And its the same with every other social issue - Don't agree with abortion? don't have one. But don't try to force others to live as you choose to live.

Get big government and nutter fundies out of our private lives.

 

[KevinWestern]

No, that isn't okay. The First Amendment was written as it is written specifically to prevent 75 Christians from voting in religious dogma which limits the freedom of the other 25 people. That is the very first rule in the US Constitution. That is why it was written.

But where do you draw the line of what’s Christian and what’s simply public opinion/traditional values?

I will clarify that I do not believe you should be able to quote the Bible in a court of law as “proof” you can or cannot do something. That is not acceptable. I agree with you there. But what if someone is inspired to "love one another" by the bible and lobbies to make laws that foster this belief. Are we to condemn that too?

Know what I mean?

The argument is completely biblical because no one can come up with any other reason to oppose gay marriage.

If that’s the case then why does there exist other non-christian cultures who also value opposite sex marriage? If it is purely biblical than this should then only exist in a Christian society, which it doesn't.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

The First Amendment prohibits religious belief from becoming US law. This is known as "the separation of church and state". Not everyone believes your religion so it is not "freedom" to impose your religious views on members of the general public through legislation. Why is this so difficult to understand?

Well, technically the idea is that you can't favor a single religion - specifically - in law and have that trump the democratic opinion. However, if the society is made up of 100 people and 75 are Christian and hold the "belief" - via influence from the bible - that marriage should only be man/woman, and they vote to keep it that way, I think that is still OK.

Do I agree with it? Of course not, I think any two consenting adults should be able to marry if they want. However, you need to remember that the bible can influence the opinion of a group just as a science textbook might influence the opinion of another. We can't "forbid" that from happening.

No, that isn't okay. The First Amendment was written as it is written specifically to prevent 75 Christians from voting in religious dogma which limits the freedom of the other 25 people. That is the very first rule in the US Constitution. That is why it was written.

Writing a law based on a Bible passage which defines marriage as only between a man and a woman in order to discriminate against tens of thousands of gay and lesbian couples is in direct violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution. So the question stands, "Do Teabaggers want to abolish the First Amendment in order to push through their religious laws?"

I don't think the argument is completely Biblical. I think it's more or less "traditionalists" (people who want to keep things as they were) vs. "progressives" (people who want to expand something to include a new group).

The argument is completely biblical because no one can come up with any other reason to oppose gay marriage.

Does the bible forbid gay marriage?

And, even if it does, how does that have any influence or impact on human rights?

 

[martybegan]

Our laws against murder and stealing are based on the violation of the rights of others, not the Bible. The Bible does not dictate US law because of the First Amendment. In what way does passing a law based solely on a Bible passage not violate the separation of church and state?

What is your opposition to gay marriage besides the Bible?

If voted in by a state legislature then i have no opposition to gay marriage. I oppose the use of courts that create a "right" to gay marriage that does not and has never existed in the Constitution. I also opposed forcing acceptance of gay marriage on people via public accommodation laws.

And again, intent and reason behind a law does not come into play. the action of the law has to be unconstitutional. One can oppose gay marriage based solely on precedent, which is substantial. What the first amendment prevents is the government forcing you from paying for religion, or performing overt religious acts at the behest of the government. it does not prevent laws that are based on religious beliefs that do not fall into the categories above.

The "right" to gay marriage is not denied in the US Constitution, either, so it is a "right" left to the People. If you want to make it a "State's rights" issue then the Federal government has to be involved because if a gay or lesbian couple is married in one state and then move to another state that does not recognize their marriage, there has to be a higher authority to mediate the situation. Since gay marriage is not denied to homosexual and lesbian couples anywhere in the Constitution, you do not have the right to forbid the practice.

It is not guaranteed by the bill of rights or the amendments either. It therefore falls to the state legislatures to define the contract. There is no Constitutional right to gay marriage anywhere in the document.

The federal government has ZERO mandate to regulate the contract of marriage.

And if, by your logic, one state has to recognize the others without any reservations, I guess anyone with a valid gun permit should be able to go to a state like NY that doesnt allow such things. After all, 2nd amendment rights ARE ACTUALLY IN THE DOCUMENT.

 

[KNB]

In what way am I misinterpreting the First Amendment?

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" means that Congress shall make no law based solely on small-minded bigoted religious bullshit. It doesn't only mean that Congress cannot establish a national religion. Passing a law based on religion which prohibits the freedom of a particular group of people who have not broken any other laws is not Constitutional.

Point out where the right to gay marriage is denied in the US Constitution.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

No, that isn't okay. The First Amendment was written as it is written specifically to prevent 75 Christians from voting in religious dogma which limits the freedom of the other 25 people. That is the very first rule in the US Constitution. That is why it was written.

But where do you draw the line of what’s Christian and what’s simply public opinion/traditional values?

I will clarify that I do not believe you should be able to quote the Bible in a court of law as “proof” you can or cannot do something. That is not acceptable. I agree with you there. But if someone's opinion are simply influenced by the bible, are we supposed to say that's not right? What if my opinion is influenced by something Stephen Hawking wrote and I convince all my neighbors to also believe it and we lobbied Congress to make one of those principles into law? Is that bad?

Know what I mean?

The argument is completely biblical because no one can come up with any other reason to oppose gay marriage.

If that’s the case then why does there exist other non-christian cultures who also value opposite sex marriage? If it is purely biblical than this should then only exist in a Christian society, which it doesn't.

Its certainly true that some backward cultures deny many basic human rights but again, why should that influence or impact the US? Why must the US move backward?

 

[bodecea]

Funny how some get fired and publicly ridiculed, yet others simply get instantly forgiven and supported. All depends on which side of the political fence you're standing on.

While I have no issues with gays tying the knot, I am forever amazed at the hypocrisy on the left when it comes to whose feet they hold to the fire. The CEO donated money to let his opinion be heard. Fair enough, as that is how it works here in America. Debate openly and let the people vote and decide. However, the Clintons were against gay marriage and legislation was passed that made their opinion law without another vote by the people.

“If it is unconscionable to support a company whose CEO once donated to the cause against marriage equality, why is it not unconscionable to support a candidate who opposed marriage equality as recently as 2008, and who was an integral part of an administration that embraced the Defense Of Marriage Act, signed into law by Bill Clinton?”

“How do you weigh the relative impact of a president strongly backing DOMA – even running ads touting his support for it in the South – and an executive who spent $1000 for an anti-marriage equality Proposition?”

Who said this?

"Marriage has a historic, religious and moral context that goes back to the beginning of time. And I think a marriage has always been between a man and a woman.”

Why, it was Hillary Clinton, of course. I wish the liberals here would react to that statement on it's own merit, but they will look at the author of the quote and go easy on her. And Obama didn't "evolve" on the issue until Biden opened his mouth and said that Obama supported it. Once that was out and the entire gay community was paying attention, Obama had little choice but to claim he evolved, apparently overnight. I found that evolution of his completely disingenuous. And Hillary hasn't publicly "evolved" yet. She was against gay marriage last time she spoke of it in 2008. Should we expect another miraculous overnight change of heart? The left will believe it despite being an obvious ploy to polish up her image for her presidential run. One thing I've learned about the low-info Dem voters, as long as the promise sounds pretty and more handouts and amnesty are promised, they will vote for the person willing to steal on their behalf. We are at that point where nearly half are voting themselves into a life of living on tax payer money. Dangling tax money in front of people is so tempting that they will forget all the lies and the horrible mess this country is in.


What Do Hillary Clinton & Booted Mozilla CEO Have in Common When it Comes to Traditional Marriage?

With knowledge, people change. People evolve. People learn what they once thought may not be right.

Obama changed, Clinton changed. Hundreds of thousands of Americans are changing their view on a daily basis.


That's knowledge.

What you see is a prime example of the CORE of Conservative thought.....Don't change, no matter what! No matter what new info appears, don't change, no matter what!

 

[martybegan]

In what way am I misinterpreting the First Amendment?

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" means that Congress shall make no law based solely on small-minded bigoted religious bullshit. It doesn't only mean that Congress cannot establish a national religion. Passing a law based on religion which prohibits the freedom of a particular group of people who have not broken any other laws is not Constitutional.

Point out where the right to gay marriage is denied in the US Constitution.

Point out where it is a right granted by the constitution first.

and your first statement is complete and utter bullshit.