Supreme Court justices RIP ruling forcing states to recognize same-sex marriages - 'Threat To Religious Freedom!'

[TheProgressivePatriot]

And if benefits are managed relatively by party or banks or other institutions where citizens have a choice in what terms of benefits they want to fund and follow, then we wouldn't have to argue or compete to impose one set of conditions for everyone.

We do not have to argue about anything if we just embrace equality and stop trying to accomodate the bigots which I suspect you are sympathetic to

 

[emilynghiem]

Same sex marriage, like marriage in general, is a civil right. People are free to bring religion into it if they so choose. They are also free to allow religion to define marriage... for themselves, and ONLY for themselves.

So what is this nonsense about government establishing your reigious beliefs? That makes NO sense at all. That is not what is happening.

But you are correct in saying that "people should be able to practice religious rituals without govt having to force this policy in everyone.
However that was in fact done in the past with laws against same sex marriage and being done now with abortion to give just two exmples

Dear P Patriot
1. It is a natural right if you believe in natural laws
2. It's a religious right if you believe in spiritual laws
3. It is a civil right if you believe marriage and benefits should be tied to the state

Sorry but Libertarians Christian Anarchists Constitutionalists and other people who do not believe in tying marriage and benefits to the state do not place marriage in govt hands the way you do

Compare people who place right to life at conception in govt hands while others say thats spiritual or medical and outside govt


Isn't it accurate and fair to say not all people place authority in the same place or order as the next person or party?

Some people put church first then state supports that but doesn't interfere.

Others say govt is public and central and church is optional.

The same way it offends and excludes you to put "marriage" under the church, it equally offends and excludes people who see marriage as private and not under the state. Both sides complain the other is mixing church and state.

The best way I see to fix this is to neutralize public policy similar to unisex restrooms that don't specify one way or another.

Just have civil unions and partnerships or custody/estate guardianships through the state. And keep all marriage issues, social relations and benefits personal to people through their parties. If parties file to have govt manage their members benefits then you can have your govt marriages and benefits the way you believe through your party or group you want to use for your policies.


Like shopping for an insurance provider that doesn't impose choices or conditions on anyone else.

Since you and I are both progressive supporters, let's work with our fellow Democrats Greens and independent progressives to set up marriage and social benefits through our parties including universal health care. We can pay for that instead of prisons and cover educational costs and health care so nobody fights over forcing this through govt into other people who don't agree to the same policies (prochoice, provax, pro LGBT etc). We can do better organizing marriage and social benefits through our parties that believe in universal care, right to marriage and health care as civil rights

 

[bodecea]

I answered you.

'Shameless promotion'?
Fuck you, snowflake.

Why are you sexually propositioning another poster>

 

[surada]

It is still the govt endorsing or establishing a policy that people do not all believe in
1. belief in govt managing social benefits and health care centrally for everyone vs belief that health care and benefits as relative social programs belong to people not federal govt or states unless people consent to the terms. Anc prochoice vs prolife believers clearly do not agree on funding the other policy with their taxes
2. Belief in marriage, being personal and whether belief in same sex couples being valid or not, being endorsed by the state without consent of the public

If people AGREE to these beliefs through govt, then it's not argued as unconstitutional. It's when people don't agree on beliefs, then imposing one policy over another isn't treating everyone's consent and beliefs the same.

When I talk with Libertarians and independents like one of my lesbian friends who also believes govt should stay out of marriage, they agree that Civil Unions and Domestic Partnerships would solve the problem similar to having Unisex Restrooms that don't specify gender at all.

So that is where we can get universal consensus. By having the state revert to neutral language and not cause conflicts with anyone's beliefs

You don't have to believe in same sex marriage. Mind your own business. Look after your own marriage. You don't have the right to dictate to others.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Dear P Patriot
1. It is a natural right if you believe in natural laws
2. It's a religious right if you believe in spiritual laws
3. It is a civil right if you believe marriage and benefits should be tied to the state

So? That is pretty much what I have been saying. You sure have a way of using a lot of words to say absolutly nothing that needs to be said

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Sorry but Libertarians Christian Anarchists Constitutionalists and other people who do not believe in tying marriage and benefits to the state do not place marriage in govt hands the way you do

Compare people who place right to life at conception in govt hands while others say thats spiritual or medical and outside govt

Then Libertarians Christian Anarchists Constitutionalists and other people who do not believe in tying marriage and benefits to the state should simply not get married by the state. Yes it is that simple

There is no comparison to right to life people who are not content to make decisions just for themselves but what to make them for everyone

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Isn't it accurate and fair to say not all people place authority in the same place or order as the next person or party?

Some people put church first then state supports that but doesn't interfere.

Others say govt is public and central and church is optional.

More unnecessary prattling. What is the point?

 

[surada]

Then Libertarians Christian Anarchists Constitutionalists and other people who do not believe in tying marriage and benefits to the state should simply not get married by the state. Yes it is that simple

There is no comparison to right to life people who are not content to make decisions just for themselves but what to make them for everyone

The state doesn't marry anyone. Marriage is a contract between consenting adults. The state is not party to the contract. They marry each other. That's domestic law 101.

 

[JustAGuy1]

Why are you sexually propositioning another poster>

Jealous?

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

The same way it offends and excludes you to put "marriage" under the church, it equally offends and excludes people who see marriage as private and not under the state. Both sides complain the other is mixing church and state.

Now you are making an inane, and bizarre assumption about what offends me. I am not offended by marriage being performed by religious institutions

'I have no problem with anyone going to their pace of woeship, having a cerimony , and calling it marriage, with or without the involvement of government.

My only stipulation is that secular marriage that is government sanctioed be available to those who want it.

The fact is that the way the sytem is set up now, marriage is in fact a mixture of church and state for those people who want a religious ceremond and also want government benefits. That is a simple fact like it or not.

My problem with the chuch/ stse issue is when the states tries to define marriage based on religious views of what it should be. That has happened and that is another fact. But we on the left are certainly not mixing church and state

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

The state doesn't marry anyone. Marriage is a contract between consenting adults. The state is not party to the contract. They marry each other. That's domestic law 101.

The state sanctions marriage although not a party to it. Your reponse in no way hegates or diminishes anything that I have said

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

The best way I see to fix this is to neutralize public policy similar to unisex restrooms that don't specify one way or another.

Just have civil unions and partnerships or custody/estate guardianships through the state. And keep all marriage issues, social relations and benefits personal to people through their parties. If parties file to have govt manage their members benefits then you can have your govt marriages and benefits the way you believe through your party or group you want to use for your policies.

You keep trying to fix something that is not broken, inorder to appease those who oppose equality. Marriage ia marriage. Participate or do not participate. You do your thing and leave the rest of us alone.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Since you and I are both progressive supporters, let's work with our fellow Democrats Greens and independent progressives to set up marriage and social benefits through our parties including universal health care. We can pay for that instead of prisons and cover educational costs and health care so nobody fights over forcing this through govt into other people who don't agree to the same policies (prochoice, provax, pro LGBT etc). We can do better organizing marriage and social benefits through our parties that believe in universal care, right to marriage and health care as civil rights

You're a progressive supporter? I don't think so. You can't be progressive while insisting on accomodating the bigots who bitch about gay marriage being forced on them just because other want it.

Marriage does not need fixing. This "through our parties thing" is rediculous. It is just another attempt to accomodate the bigots by removing marriage from government because some snowflakes are offended by gay marriage. Ya know what? They will be offended by it no matter what, so to hell with them.

You want to define parties by how people define marriage and though that were the only issue. And how exactly is that going to pay for health care, and education? You are not making much sense.

What about people who want gay marriage but also love their guns ? Which party do they fit in with?

 

[emilynghiem]

You don't have to believe in same sex marriage. Mind your own business. Look after your own marriage. You don't have the right to dictate to others.

^ Exactly which is why marriage in terms of specifying "social relations of the partners" should be kept out of govt

When people form an LLP or a contract to Cosign on a car loan or student loan, those people can be any relation or not at all related. As long as they agree to legal liability and to share financial responsibility by the terms and conditions.

The equivalent in this case would be to allow "civil unions" or "domestic partnerships" that don't specify or dictate what the social relationship is between the parties to the contract. That would be neutral.

However if either side of the LGBT debate started Legislating that only "couples in a personal Relationship" can share rent or mortgage on a house or agree to pay for college for a student, then we'd get into this mess of which couples count, do heterosexual or homosexual couples count equally as couples eligible for partnership contracts?

Just keep it neutral and this removes either issue.

And the second issue is not everyone agrees to manage social benefits through govt, or on these terms and conditions applied to marriage, or on the terms and conditions of marriage and benefits tied to govt

That's 3 different levels people disagree on due to difference in creeds.

To get people to agree to a uniform neutral policy through govt either means only limiting the policy to where there is consensus OR separating policies by different groups to fund and follow their own choice and beliefs about policy


It's like the school prayer issue: either agree on one denomination so everyone consents to the school policy, or give eveyone equal free choice of their own beliefs. Which is how Texas came up with the Moment of Silence that was enough for people to agree on as neutral

Prayer isn't neutral but Moment of Silence passed as legislation.

Marriage isn't neutral but civil unions and domestic partnerships, legal guardianship and custody / estate agreements are neutral positions that can be set up regardless of social relations or not. As long as people agree to the legal and financial terms and conditions of the contract.

So let people apply and add their terms and conditions. And just keep the govt policy neutral without requiring or regulating "social relations through govt"

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

^ Exactly which is why marriage in terms of specifying "social relations of the partners" should be kept out of govt

The government does not- for the most part- define social relationship with respect to marriage. A few exceptions are prohibiting the marriage of people who are too closely related, those who cannot legally consent, and until recently, those of the same gender. The legalization of same sex marriage moved the government one step further away from defining social relationships so I really don’t know what your blathering about.

In reality, it is the people who are involved in the marriage that determine their social relationship though an implied, unwritten and often unspoken contract with respect their expectations of marriage and of each other within the marriage. Yes it is that simple
The government’s role is limited to establishing the legal protections and financial benefits for the couple and their children. Beyond that, government has no role in the day to day functioning of a marriage . You are inventing issues and problems and making things way more complicated then they need be.

Marriage does not need to be changed or fixed. We got it right by extending marriage as we know it to same sex couples. We made it more inclusive and as such strengthened it as an institution. The only thing that need to be fixed is the brains of people who cannot accept and deal with the concept of marriage equality. Equality made the lives of hundreds of thousands of couples better. It made the lives of their children better. It cost no one anything. Those who are threatened by changing social and sexual norms need to consider whatever issues they are having with their own sexual or gender identity, or in their marriage and get professional help if necessary.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

When people form an LLP or a contract to Cosign on a car loan or student loan, those people can be any relation or not at all related. As long as they agree to legal liability and to share financial responsibility by the terms and conditions.

The equivalent in this case would be to allow "civil unions" or "domestic partnerships" that don't specify or dictate what the social relationship is between the parties to the contract. That would be neutral.

There you go again with your false equivalency and non sequitur logical fallacies. Marriage is much more than a business transaction. Yu repeated references to "civil unions" or "domestic partnerships" makes no sense and promotes inequality

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

However if either side of the LGBT debate started Legislating that only "couples in a personal Relationship" can share rent or mortgage on a house or agree to pay for college for a student, then we'd get into this mess of which couples count, do heterosexual or homosexual couples count equally as couples eligible for partnership contracts?

Holy shit what?! You really pulled that fear mongering bullshit from deep inside your pie hole.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

And the second issue is not everyone agrees to manage social benefits through govt, or on these terms and conditions applied to marriage, or on the terms and conditions of marriage and benefits tied to govt

Then DO NOT get legally married . Very simple. Those people have no business trying to spoil it for others. YOU have no business trying to spoil it for others

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

To get people to agree to a uniform neutral policy through govt either means only limiting the policy to where there is consensus OR separating policies by different groups to fund and follow their own choice and beliefs about policy

Give it a rest! I am not going to agree with the bbigots, or compromise with them. While claiming to want consensus, you seem to be proposing ways to further divide society

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Marriage isn't neutral but civil unions and domestic partnerships, legal guardianship and custody / estate agreements are neutral positions that can be set up regardless of social relations or not. As long as people agree to the legal and financial terms and conditions of the contract.

gibberish!