Ted Cruz backs county clerks denying marriage licenses to gay couples

[Seawytch]

Homosexuals are so compassionate...Actually outside of their own circle so many are very hateful. You'd be one of those people I see

Did you have something relevant to contribute?

Adding perspective on the militant, homosexual, activist i responded to.

More like misconception. I didn't say I wanted them to poison themselves, just that they would.

I'm sure you wouldn't might much..Those people are bigots and should be punished

Ooops typo she wouldn't mind much..This is what came out of her warped mind..The bigots "killing themselves" that says a lot to me about this person

Except all of that came out of your warped mind, not mine. I said they would poison themselves in Texas. It had nothing to do with a small minority's bigotry towards gays, but a Republican desire for fewer regulations. They will poison the air they breath if left to themselves. I wouldn't want them to do it, they just wouldn't be able to help themselves.

 

[Jroc]

Did you have something relevant to contribute?

Adding perspective on the militant, homosexual, activist i responded to.

More like misconception. I didn't say I wanted them to poison themselves, just that they would.

I'm sure you wouldn't might much..Those people are bigots and should be punished

Ooops typo she wouldn't mind much..This is what came out of her warped mind..The bigots "killing themselves" that says a lot to me about this person

Except all of that came out of your warped mind, not mine. I said they would poison themselves in Texas. It had nothing to do with a small minority's bigotry towards gays, but a Republican desire for fewer regulations. They will poison the air they breath if left to themselves. I wouldn't want them to do it, they just wouldn't be able to help themselves.

Umm.. ok.. I quoted you. Like i said lots of homosexuals are very angry people.Must be part of the psychosis

 

[Seawytch]

Adding perspective on the militant, homosexual, activist i responded to.

More like misconception. I didn't say I wanted them to poison themselves, just that they would.

I'm sure you wouldn't might much..Those people are bigots and should be punished

Ooops typo she wouldn't mind much..This is what came out of her warped mind..The bigots "killing themselves" that says a lot to me about this person

Except all of that came out of your warped mind, not mine. I said they would poison themselves in Texas. It had nothing to do with a small minority's bigotry towards gays, but a Republican desire for fewer regulations. They will poison the air they breath if left to themselves. I wouldn't want them to do it, they just wouldn't be able to help themselves.

Umm.. ok.. I quoted you. Like i said lots of homosexuals are very angry people.Must be part of the psychosis

No, you didn't. You misinterpreted what I typed. Must be due to your stupidity.

Emily was talking about a perfect world where Republicans get everything they want and Democrats get everything they want...so someone asked what that would look like. I, using humor, provided and example of what they would look like. You, because you are not very bright, took my statement to mean I wanted all Texans not living in Austin to kill themselves. That is not what I said or even implied.

 

[Jroc]

More like misconception. I didn't say I wanted them to poison themselves, just that they would.

I'm sure you wouldn't might much..Those people are bigots and should be punished

Ooops typo she wouldn't mind much..This is what came out of her warped mind..The bigots "killing themselves" that says a lot to me about this person

Except all of that came out of your warped mind, not mine. I said they would poison themselves in Texas. It had nothing to do with a small minority's bigotry towards gays, but a Republican desire for fewer regulations. They will poison the air they breath if left to themselves. I wouldn't want them to do it, they just wouldn't be able to help themselves.

Umm.. ok.. I quoted you. Like i said lots of homosexuals are very angry people.Must be part of the psychosis

No, you didn't. You misinterpreted what I typed. Must be due to your stupidity.

Emily was talking about a perfect world where Republicans get everything they want and Democrats get everything they want...so someone asked what that would look like. I, using humor, provided and example of what they would look like. You, because you are not very bright, took my statement to mean I wanted all Texans not living in Austin to kill themselves. That is not what I said or even implied.

Maybe so, i didn't read through he whole thread. My statement on homosexuals still stands, But ill respond to your pure stupidity. So in your warped mind conservatives want to kill their children?..I though that was a progressive thing, killing babies

 

[Seawytch]

I'm sure you wouldn't might much..Those people are bigots and should be punished

Ooops typo she wouldn't mind much..This is what came out of her warped mind..The bigots "killing themselves" that says a lot to me about this person

Except all of that came out of your warped mind, not mine. I said they would poison themselves in Texas. It had nothing to do with a small minority's bigotry towards gays, but a Republican desire for fewer regulations. They will poison the air they breath if left to themselves. I wouldn't want them to do it, they just wouldn't be able to help themselves.

Umm.. ok.. I quoted you. Like i said lots of homosexuals are very angry people.Must be part of the psychosis

No, you didn't. You misinterpreted what I typed. Must be due to your stupidity.

Emily was talking about a perfect world where Republicans get everything they want and Democrats get everything they want...so someone asked what that would look like. I, using humor, provided and example of what they would look like. You, because you are not very bright, took my statement to mean I wanted all Texans not living in Austin to kill themselves. That is not what I said or even implied.

Maybe so, i didn't read through he whole thread. My statement on homosexuals still stands, But ill respond to your pure stupidity. So in your warped mind conservatives want to kill their children?..I though that was a progressive thing, killing babies

You're right, your stupidity still stands. You've done nothing to dissuade the notion of your stupidity, that's for certain.

 

[emilynghiem]

There is a Constitutional Amendment that secures the right to guns. There is no Constitutional right to marry.

Even so, a sales person with an objection to guns would be permitted not to ring up a gun sale.

There is a Constitutional Amendment that secures the right to guns. There is no Constitutional right to marry. ?? Yes there is. The Supreme court has rules on numerous occasions that marriage is a right, and now, since Obergefell v. Hodges, same sex marriage is a right. It is a binding precedent -part of constitutional law as valid as any enumerated right.

Yes, the right to marry is a constitutional right; any who says different simply is ignorant of the law.

JakeStarkey
The difference is whether you believe it is naturally included in religious freedom as any other personal practice is,
or you believe the judiciary has authority to declare this right to marriage as law instead of the legislative branch.

 

[emilynghiem]

Ooops typo she wouldn't mind much..This is what came out of her warped mind..The bigots "killing themselves" that says a lot to me about this person

Except all of that came out of your warped mind, not mine. I said they would poison themselves in Texas. It had nothing to do with a small minority's bigotry towards gays, but a Republican desire for fewer regulations. They will poison the air they breath if left to themselves. I wouldn't want them to do it, they just wouldn't be able to help themselves.

Umm.. ok.. I quoted you. Like i said lots of homosexuals are very angry people.Must be part of the psychosis

No, you didn't. You misinterpreted what I typed. Must be due to your stupidity.

Emily was talking about a perfect world where Republicans get everything they want and Democrats get everything they want...so someone asked what that would look like. I, using humor, provided and example of what they would look like. You, because you are not very bright, took my statement to mean I wanted all Texans not living in Austin to kill themselves. That is not what I said or even implied.

Maybe so, i didn't read through he whole thread. My statement on homosexuals still stands, But ill respond to your pure stupidity. So in your warped mind conservatives want to kill their children?..I though that was a progressive thing, killing babies

You're right, your stupidity still stands. You've done nothing to dissuade the notion of your stupidity, that's for certain.

Dear Seawytch I see more STUBBORNNESS going on than stupidity.
Which can only be expected of people when it comes to inherent BELIEFS we naturally defend as true for us.

Seawytch where the stubbornness comes across as willful ignorance
is refusing to consider that some homosexuality IS unnatural, and people HAVE changed their orientation,
this is a SPIRITUAL process, so people retain FREE CHOICE when it comes to matters of SPIRITUAL beliefs.

You keep looking at only the legal/secular level of this conflict.
That's understandable since you are obviously a secular minded person.

But to defend religious freedom for all people is NOT just for the secular level.
There are spiritual levels of belief and practice going on.

As many people believe homosexuality is natural and cannot change
as believe homosexuality is unnatural and CAN be changed.

So until you address BOTH beliefs, Seawytch you are not taking all people of all beliefs and creeds
into account BEFORE you go off and start judging people as bigots who have different beliefs than yours.

NOT ALL those opposed to gay marriage are bigots.

You have yet to prove either that orientation cannot change or it can.
That is one point causing contention over this whole issue, beliefs about homosexuality.
Another issue is about the marriage itself, and whether civil unions can be managed through the state
WITHOUT bringing in language or terms/conditions that people don't all believe in.
And another issue is about the role and authority of govt when it comes to matters of beliefs,
religious or political.

So that's at least THREE different areas where beliefs on both sides are at stake.

Seawytch if you don't examine all THREE areas, and recognize the validity of beliefs in each one,
that's probably more from STUBBORNNESS than stupidity.

As intelligent as Obama is, if he misses how many levels of beliefs are involved here, which the govt has not even begun to address, then obviously it isn't a matter of being smarter,
but more being forgiving and inclusive of different beliefs.

Instead of being STUBBORN and refusing to include all people equally regardless of belief or creed.

 

[emilynghiem]

There is a Constitutional Amendment that secures the right to guns. There is no Constitutional right to marry.

Even so, a sales person with an objection to guns would be permitted not to ring up a gun sale.

There is no Constitutional right to marry. ?? Yes there is. The Supreme court has rules on numerous occasions that marriage is a right, and now, since Obergefell v. Hodges, same sex marriage is a right. It is a binding precedent -part of constitutional law as valid as any enumerated right.

Dear TheProgressivePatriot

Many people would disagree and say it takes legislative action, not judicial, to create laws and rights.
If you are going to amend the Constitution, where is the Constitutional Amendment and ratification?

Same with radically altering the federal govt authority to mandate insurance, which many argue
would require a Constitutional Amendment granting federal govt such new reaches of authority.

The judiciary ruled that the ACA was Constitutional as a tax, but Congress did not vote on this as a tax.
And if you look at the Congressional vote, that was split by party, this shows that the bill was biased
by political beliefs; and by the First Amendment, govt is not supposed to establish beliefs, nor regulate on the basis of religion or penalize people whose creed prevents them from complying with the mandates against their beliefs.

These laws do not pass Constitutional standards universally for all the citizens of America who deserve equal representation.

I believe the challenges to these laws will eventually prevail, similar to how Bush's mandates that were overreaching and exceeded Constitutional limits on govt were also challenged and compelled him to retract his arguments for going to war that were never proven but remain faith based.

The arguments about right to marriage and right to health care are also faith based.
So if people are going to pass faith-based mandates through govt, this has to be by consensus
of the people affected or else you are violating the First and Fourteenth Amendment.

If you do not even consider the beliefs of other people to have standing, that's why oppression happens.
By dehumanizing and subjugating other people as not counting,
depriving them of equal rights and liberties by declaring them void.
================
personal note: So interesting, TheProgressivePatriot
if people were worried that you were going to be some neo-neocon,
well, if I am more hardcore Constitutionalist than you are as a fellow progressive,
then maybe I am the "socialist nationalistic-nazi" people are really afraid of,
and you are a "liberal light" compared with me. Maybe next to me,
you won't look so scary after all, but will come across as relatively harmless!

If so, perhaps we can play good cop, bad cop. People like liberals they can entrap and corner into contradictions.
They can't always deal with me saying I'm a progressive Democrat because I'll actually agree on Constitutional
principles, hold them to the same, and turn the tables and corner them into contradictions.

Liberals aren't supposed to be able to defend and win Constitutional arguments.
If you do what liberals normally do, and just depend on Govt instead of Constitutional laws to defend equal rights, then you should fit with the stereotypes of liberals where people can easily pick apart your arguments.

If rights depend on govt to establish and defend, then people will never be equal that way; because that means people in govt positions or with party influence have more power than people who aren't represented by either.

Whereas for the opposite, where govt follows and reflects where people agree to contract with each other,
then all people can be educated and empowered to enforce and exercise authority of law themselves first,
and then they can be represented equally in govt whether directly or indirectly.

I don't know where I stand on the scale from left to right compared with you.
But on a scale of "scary to think about," I probably come across as a more frightening threat.

 

[emilynghiem]

Link? You've seen her contract?

Go **** yourself. Her job is clerk. Her duties are set by statute. There is no "contract"; there is a statute that describes the duties of a clerk.

Dear paddymurphy The Rabbi
If two wrongs don't make a right, then 3, 4 or more wrongs don't either.
The original problem is the legislators and judiciary didn't do their jobs and keep to
the Constitutional contract to protect all beliefs equally. Taking sides doesn't protect the
beliefs of the people with the other beliefs. They never ORDERED or formed a consensus
on the law which is what would be necessary to prevent these violations back and forth,
now we have both sides whose rights are violated because we are in a catch-22,
with both religious beliefs, rights to equality under law, and political beliefs violated left and right.

Had the judges and legislators worked out the conflicts this would not happen.
The judges didn't do their full job, and dumped it back on the people to sort out.
In the meantime, this clerk didn't do her job either.
Similar to how Rosa Parks didn't follow the law that was biased and messed up to begin with.

Either way, even before the issue of gay marriage came up,
marriage laws delved into personal matters and was overreaching by the state.
This has always been a problem, with the state intervening in marriage and child custody
when we give govt this authority. It just wasn't contested to this degree until gay marriage
was added and went against people's beliefs. Similar to denying gay marriage was biased
and caused a conflict. Marriage beliefs are personal and this is what is going to happen,
sooner or later.

The judges didn't resolve the Constitutional issues and how to accommodate all beliefs
equally to prevent discrimination by creed, but passed the buck back to the people.
Why? Because marriage is a personal decision that belongs to the people to begin with.
Had we the people resolved our own issues, this wouldn't have escalated to federal govt
who shouldn't have a say in our personal affairs and beliefs anyway. It isn't the judges job
to decide for us, so that's why the process keeps failing through govt. Taking sides is going to continue violating the beliefs of one side or the other because issues of BELIEFS don't belong in govt at all.

Go back on your meds.

Ppbbfftt!!! If you can't keep up with me, Paddycakes, or where the
country is going with recognizing political beliefs as equal under law, then that's your problem not mine.
Meds will not solve the problem. We need to address the conflicts DIRECTLY
not suppress or blame the symptoms on each other. Personal attacks just add more distractions.
What, are you afraid of addressing the issues directly?
They exist, so why not accept the fact people don't agree and deal with that REALITY.
If you can't handle reality, and I can, then who is emotionally struggling here?
Man up, this ride is heading for Equal Justice Under Law and it is intense.

Emily,

You're working under numerous false assumptions. First, that all beliefs are equally valid. They're not. Second, that all law should be the product of consensus. It isn't. There's going to be disagreement. Law is the product of the majority view, bound by individual rights. Within those boundaries, the majority sets the rule. That's democracy.

Dear Skylar
Including all beliefs in the democratic process does not mean they will all prevail in the laws that result.
What I'm saying is many of the beliefs on both sides will "cancel each other out"
ie the beliefs EXCLUDING each others' may be equal to each other in not being universal.
while the beliefs that INCLUDE the others may end up prevailing since those accommodate the other beliefs.

And NO, when it comes to religious beliefs,
the LAW clearly states that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
or prohibiting the free exercise thereof
and the Fourteenth Amendment expanded equal protections of the law to states,
while the Civil Rights Act extended these to public institutions, including the concept of
not discriminating on the basis of CREED.

Clearly if we don't agree yet, we may need to pass additional legislation or amendments
that CLARIFY how political beliefs and creeds are protected equally by the First and Fourteenth Amendments.

But at this point, NO, I disagree and so does half the nation,
that Judges and Govt do NOT HAVE authority to MANDATE laws concerning FAITH BASED beliefs.

Right to marriage and Right to health care are two examples of political beliefs not all people share.
Where we disagree is not so much of the CONTENT of the laws,
because I DO believe people have the right to exercise both the above BELIEFS,
but it appears the MAJOR contention is whether GOVT has authority to establish these BELIEFS for the nation.

Those are two separate issues.

If it requires Constitutional clarification to settle the issue of political beliefs,
I'm all for working out an agreement how to handle such issues so we don't
go through this every time a political belief comes up, whether with abortion,
death penalty, marriage and orientation, gun rights or voting rights, health care and immigration etc.
And if we can agree on a process, then that can be written up and either added
to the Judicial system as a means of mediating conflicts as part of the legal and legislative procedures,
or passed as a clarification or amendment to the Constitution, perhaps under the First and Fourteenth
Amendment specifying how to handle political beliefs or creed so there is no discrimination or conflicting biases.

 

[emilynghiem]

It is illegal to fire someone over their religious beliefs. First Amendment and all that.

How about simply firing her because she refuses to do the job that's she's paid for?

Sure, as Rosa Parks was jailed for violating a messed up law. That is the consequence
of civil disobedience. Even Dr. King ended up in jail and was criticized by fellow ministers
who saw breaking the law as negative and not obeying civil authority. This does happen.

In this case, the rulings and laws are messed up on both sides.
If they support gay marriage they violate beliefs of opponents who don't approve of those beliefs endorsed by the state; if they deny gay marriage they violate the equal protection and free exercise of beliefs of those who do believe in marriage equality. Either way it is a catch-22 because both sides' beliefs are equal under law.
The Judiciary and the legislators before them messed up by FAILING to recognize both the religious beliefs and the political beliefs at stake here, that all are equal in the eyes of the law. Big fat FAIL and everyone's paying.

I seems that you are always trying to see both sides of the issue and to find ways to accommodate everyone. While that is commendable it is often not realistic or appropriate to do so. Sometimes wrong is just wrong. This is not a matter of civil disobedience to protest an unjust law. It’s a matter of hiding behind the claim of religious freedom in order to discriminate. I have to wonder how many marriage licenses she issued to people who were previously married. Isn’t divorce also against here religion. ? It represents the height of hypocrisy.

The constitution protects the free exercise of religion. All freedoms have their limitations and end where ones behavior in the name of the exercise of that freedom infringes on the rights of others. In addition, religious freedom has no greater value than other freedoms.

The lawmakers and the judiciary did not “mess up” in any way. The clerk still has her religious beliefs in tack and none can take that away from here. She is free to liver HER life according to those beliefs but so is everyone else, including those who believe-on religious or any grounds – should be allowed to marry.


You might want to consider this:

1. Two meanings of religious freedom/liberty:1. Freedom of belief, speech, practice. 2. Freedom to restrict services, hate, denigrate, or oppress others.


1. The historical meaning of religious freedom:

This term relates to the personal freedom:
•Of religious belief,
•Of religious speech,
•Of religious assembly with fellow believers,
•Of religious proselytizing and recruitment, and
•To change one's religion from one faith group to another -- or to decide to have no religious affiliation -- or vice-versa.


The individual believer has often been the target of oppression for thinking or speaking unorthodox thoughts, for assembling with and recruiting others, and for changing their religious affiliation. Typically, the aggressors have been large religious groups and governments. Freedom from such oppression is the meaning that we generally use on this web site to refer to any of the four terms: religious freedom, religious liberty, freedom of worship and freedom to worship.

2. A rapidly emerging new meaning of religious freedom: the freedom to discriminate and denigrate:

In recent years, religious freedom is taking on a new meaning: the freedom and liberty of a believer apply their religious beliefs in order to hate, oppress, deny service to, denigrate, discriminate against, and/or reduce the human rights of minorities.

Now, the direction of the oppression has reversed. It is now the believer who is the oppressor -- typically fundamentalist and evangelical Christians and other religious conservatives. Others -- typically some women, as well as sexual, and other minorities -- are the targets. This new meaning is becoming increasingly common. It appears that this change is begin driven by a number of factors:

•The increasing public acceptance of women's use of birth control/contraceptives. This is a practice regarded as a personal decision by most faith groups, but is actively opposed by the Roman Catholic and a few other conservative faith groups.
•The increasing public acceptance of equal rights for sexual minorities including Lesbians, Gays, Bisexuals, Transgender persons and transsexuals -- the LGBT community (); and
•The increasing percentage of NOTAs in North America. These are individuals who are NOT Affiliated with an organized faith group. Some identify themselves as Agnostics, Atheists secularists, Humanists, free thinkers, etc. Others say that they are spiritual, but not religious.

The media often refer to NOTAs as "NONES" because they are affiliated to NONE of the faith groups. However, the words Nones and Nuns are homophones: words that sound alike but are spelled differently and which hold very different meanings. To avoid confusion, we recommend against this practice and recommend the unambiguous term "NOTA."

One interesting feature of this "religious freedom to discriminate" is that it generally has people treating others as they would not wish to be treated themselves. It seems to be little noticed among those who practice or advocate "religious freedom to discriminate" that this way of treating people is a direct contradiction to the Golden Rule, which Jesus required all his followers to practice. See Matthew 7:12, Luke 6:31, and the Gospel of Thomas, 6.

Source: http://www.religioustolerance.org/relfree.htm

.

Hi ProgressivePatriot
I agree that it is violating the law,
what I am saying is this could have been prevented in the first place.

Similar to not passing ACA mandates penalizing citizens with fines
so that if they don't comply then it CREATES a violation.

If the laws were written properly to begin with this wouldn't happen.

You act like it is impossible.
Well, I listed a number of ways the conflicts could be kept out of govt.
A. separating benefits and health care/marriage terms/policies by party
so the tax breaks and what people pay for are consistent with their beliefs
without interfering with the same of others, and everyone is required to cover
for their health care without imposing on taxpayers
B. Agreeing to word the laws so neutrally, they don't involve any reference
to the beliefs in conflict, yet still allow all people to exercise their own equally.
C. Agreeing to accept gay marriage even if it is against people's beliefs,
if references to God, crosses, Bibles, creation etc. is also allowed without
suing either even if it is against other people's beliefs.

It's not impossible. Treating it like it is
is part of the problem. That's like saying
"it is impossible to prevent abortion without banning it"
"it is impossible to avoid the death penalty without banning it"
"it is impossible to ensure gun safety without penalizing law abiding gun owners"
and then justifying one person or group's belief to write laws a certain way
just because THEY believe it is the only way. While others are screaming no it isn't.

That is what is wrong with the ACA mandates also,
which penalize citizens for not buying insurance
when there are other ways to provide for public health care
while keeping insurance an optional choice.

I agree that the violations are wrong,
what I am saying is to AVOID them in the first place
by working out the conflicts in advance.

TheProgressivePatriot you think it is unrealistic,
well, I'm saying it is LEGALLY NECESSSARY.

I have plenty of friends who have worked out these issues
without pushing it to this point. It is not only possible to work out difference
but Constitutionally NECESSARY to prevent violations on both sides.

This is unacceptable.

I find it unrealistic to expect people to change their beliefs
because govt requires them or penalizes them, that just makes it worse!

Lastly TheProgressivePatriot
Do you or do you not make a distinction between
people who are TRULY being discriminatory and unfair against gay people
versus people who just don't believe in gay marriage and by their convictions
are not supposed to associate or do business with people who don't recognize this conflict.

Do you understand that not everyone is doing this for
unlawful discrimination reasons. There is a difference.

So as much as it is wrong to deprive others of their equal rights and access,
it is wrongful to condemn, punish or deprive liberties of people who don't have
any abusive, unlawful or ill intent BECAUSE OF THE ACTIONS OF OTHERS WHO DO.

The same way people who believe in gun rights want a SAY in how laws are written
so they don't overcorrect and impose too much, people who have beliefs against
gay marriage want to have equal say and representation in how laws are
written and implemented so they don't cross the line and impose too much the other way EITHER.

That is not unreasonable, that is just plain ETHICAL to respect
the beliefs and sides equally, or else REMOVE marriage from govt.

Marriage does not need to be through govt.
If need be, just the civil contracts can be handled through govt
and keep all the other language and terms managed locally, statewide or nationally through other means.

If people want their beliefs seriously enough, those people will pay the costs to separate them.

If they don't want to pay the costs, then they might be willing to compromise
and pool all the beliefs together under govt; and it may provide incentive to
offer to allow equal references to God, prolife, crosses, Bibles, creation, etc.
so people don't feel discriminated against for their beliefs while mandating other beliefs.

If we are going to remove OTHER references to beliefs not everyone shares,
it is only fair to remove references to gay marriage as another belief not everyone shares.

Either allow all references, or remove them all, or negotiate how to deal with the differences.
But imposing one way through govt, while others are SCREAMING isn't going to work.
Coercion does not work when it comes to people's inherent BELIEFS at stake on BOTH SIDES.

The only thing I have ever seen work is inclusion and mediation that respects
consent of all parties in an equally mutually agreed upon consensus.

Anything else is going to be contested and cause conflicts, where beliefs are involved.

Thinking this can be overridden by govt is against human nature.
Both sides will keep fighting to defend their interests until ALL
grievances and objections are addressed and resolved. That is human nature.

Nobody I know consents to govt overriding their beliefs!!!

You need to try to get focused and present ideas in a coherent way. You are all over the map with a lot of flowery and lofty language that leaves me wondering how it translates into pragmatic and workable solutions. Just one example of something that you said:

. separating benefits and health care/marriage terms/policies by party
so the tax breaks and what people pay for are consistent with their beliefs
without interfering with the same of others, and everyone is required to cover
for their health care without imposing on taxpayers

Will you please translate that into English? Can you explain how it would actually be implemented.? People will pay taxes according to their beliefs? Everyone will cover their own health care without government assistance from taxes. ?? Really?

Dear TheProgressivePatriot sorry if my language comes across like this:

That's why I would delegate the writing out of terms of health care and benefits
to the Political parties to streamline in their member platforms and not try to write this up myself.

My attempts to propose Resolutions to the TX Democratic Party Platform
were also criticized as too comprehensive, and needed to be broken down more.

I think these are posted on another thread if you want to take a look.
Edna Griggs with the TX Democratic Women offered to help me try to "dumb this down"
where the average person can understand.

The main point is to RECOGNIZE political beliefs, and let the parties handle their own.
They can write them up themselves, I don't need to reinvent the wheel.

Proposed Amendments 28 and 29 on Equality and Right to Health Care | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

PROPOSED AMENDMENT

ON JUDICIAL FREEDOM


Pursuant to Articles I, II, and III and Amendment I, the separation of legislative, judicial, and executive powers of government, and of church and state authority, shall neither be applied nor denied to disparage the equal right of all citizens to protection of the laws.

The consent of the governed, being necessary for the just powers of government to represent the authority of the people, the right to seek mediation and consensus to resolve disputes by consent of the parties, shall not be denied, but shall be invoked by written oath of petitioning parties to abide by consensus decision with dissenting parties affected.

Pursuant to the above, the judicial freedom to select counsel, mediators, and judges to resolve a dispute, to the satisfaction of all parties, shall neither be exercised nor denied to obstruct justice, deny equal rights, or abridge free and equal access to due process of law.

TEXAS CONSTITUTION

Article 1

Section 2

All political power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority, and instituted for their benefit. The faith of the people of Texas stands pledged to the preservation of a republican form of government, and, subject to this limitation [and the consent of the governed], they have at all times the inalienable right to alter, reform or abolish their government in such manner as they may think expedient.

[Pursuant to this Section, the right of the people to vote, seek proportional or direct representation, and mediate to resolve disputes with governing authorities by a consensus of the parties, shall not be denied, but shall be invoked by written oath of petitioning parties to abide equally by the Code of Ethics for Government Service.]

 

[JakeStarkey]

JakeStarkey Emily writes, "The difference is whether you believe it is naturally included in religious freedom as any other personal practice is, or you believe the judiciary has authority to declare this right to marriage as law instead of the legislative branch."

I think what is important is that you don't agree with our constitutional republican form of government.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Emily, you are willfully ignorant to insist the Homosexuality is a choice that can be changed by free will. Too much evidence discounts that position.

 

[Seawytch]

The arguments about right to marriage and right to health care are also faith based.

Support this claim please.

 

[Seawytch]

NOT ALL those opposed to gay marriage are bigots.

If they are opposed to gays civilling marrying, yeah, they are.

You have yet to prove either that orientation cannot change or it can.

So? What the **** does that have to do with anything?

That is one point causing contention over this whole issue, beliefs about homosexuality.

Gay isn't a belief, it just is.

 

[NYcarbineer]

In the highly unlikely event Ted Cruz were president, I wonder how he'd react to states and localities simply ignoring the laws he and Congress put in place?

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

There is a Constitutional Amendment that secures the right to guns. There is no Constitutional right to marry.

Even so, a sales person with an objection to guns would be permitted not to ring up a gun sale.

There is no Constitutional right to marry. ?? Yes there is. The Supreme court has rules on numerous occasions that marriage is a right, and now, since Obergefell v. Hodges, same sex marriage is a right. It is a binding precedent -part of constitutional law as valid as any enumerated right.

Dear TheProgressivePatriot

Many people would disagree and say it takes legislative action, not judicial, to create laws and rights.
If you are going to amend the Constitution, where is the Constitutional Amendment and ratification?

Same with radically altering the federal govt authority to mandate insurance, which many argue
would require a Constitutional Amendment granting federal govt such new reaches of authority.

The judiciary ruled that the ACA was Constitutional as a tax, but Congress did not vote on this as a tax.
And if you look at the Congressional vote, that was split by party, this shows that the bill was biased
by political beliefs; and by the First Amendment, govt is not supposed to establish beliefs, nor regulate on the basis of religion or penalize people whose creed prevents them from complying with the mandates against their beliefs.

These laws do not pass Constitutional standards universally for all the citizens of America who deserve equal representation.

I believe the challenges to these laws will eventually prevail, similar to how Bush's mandates that were overreaching and exceeded Constitutional limits on govt were also challenged and compelled him to retract his arguments for going to war that were never proven but remain faith based.

The arguments about right to marriage and right to health care are also faith based.
So if people are going to pass faith-based mandates through govt, this has to be by consensus
of the people affected or else you are violating the First and Fourteenth Amendment.

If you do not even consider the beliefs of other people to have standing, that's why oppression happens.
By dehumanizing and subjugating other people as not counting,
depriving them of equal rights and liberties by declaring them void.
================
personal note: So interesting, TheProgressivePatriot
if people were worried that you were going to be some neo-neocon,
well, if I am more hardcore Constitutionalist than you are as a fellow progressive,
then maybe I am the "socialist nationalistic-nazi" people are really afraid of,
and you are a "liberal light" compared with me. Maybe next to me,
you won't look so scary after all, but will come across as relatively harmless!

If so, perhaps we can play good cop, bad cop. People like liberals they can entrap and corner into contradictions.
They can't always deal with me saying I'm a progressive Democrat because I'll actually agree on Constitutional
principles, hold them to the same, and turn the tables and corner them into contradictions.

Liberals aren't supposed to be able to defend and win Constitutional arguments.
If you do what liberals normally do, and just depend on Govt instead of Constitutional laws to defend equal rights, then you should fit with the stereotypes of liberals where people can easily pick apart your arguments.

If rights depend on govt to establish and defend, then people will never be equal that way; because that means people in govt positions or with party influence have more power than people who aren't represented by either.

Whereas for the opposite, where govt follows and reflects where people agree to contract with each other,
then all people can be educated and empowered to enforce and exercise authority of law themselves first,
and then they can be represented equally in govt whether directly or indirectly.

I don't know where I stand on the scale from left to right compared with you.
But on a scale of "scary to think about," I probably come across as a more frightening threat.

Dear Emily,

When you first showed up here, I saw you as a person who might have some fresh new ideas that could bring a divided country together. However, it has become apparent to me that you are living in a fantasy world where everyone, regardless of their views or actions is right and should and can be accommodated. In order to achieve that goal in your mind, you stretch the bounds of reality and employ bizarre theories about how our legal system works. Case in point. You said:

Many people would disagree and say it takes legislative action, not judicial, to create laws and rights. If you are going to amend the Constitution, where is the Constitutional Amendment and ratification?

This shows an abysmal understanding of constitutional law on your part. It matters little what” many people” would say. Many people would say that the earth is only 6,000 years old and that the sun revolves around it. The fact is that the court interprets laws passed by congress and the legislatures and thus shapes their meaning and application. That is called case law, and yes, sometimes court made law. That is the reality of how things work.

The court also determines the constitutionality of laws. Regarding marriage equality, the court did not amend the constitution. The constitution does not specifically address marriage and no amendment is necessary to extend the right to marry to same sex couples. They simply and appropriately invalidated state laws that banned same sex marriage. Yes it is that simple, yet to persist in trying to make it more complicated than it is.

As for religious freedom. To those who believe that the very act of same sex couples getting married is a violation of their religious freedom because they must breath the same air and walk the same earth with them, I say tough shit. Get over it. That is your psychosis and your problem. This is a secular society and a secular government. Yes Emily, there is such a thing as right and wrong and everyone cannot and should not be accommodated and respected.

I had previously asked you how it would be possible to do so, what it would look like in reality and all I’ve gotten back is more gibberish about “faith based mandates “ and “dehumanizing and subjugating other people as not counting", and "depriving them of equal rights and liberties by declaring them void” Emily, these people who you speak of are the ones seeking to dehumanize and subjugating other people as not counting, and do not deserve the time of day, leave alone the right to be heard and accommodated. They are bullies and theocrats who do not respect the rights of those who do not believe as they do. There cannot be and need not be a consensus. You consider yourself a Constitutionalist, but in order to actually be a Constitutionalist, you need to get a much better understanding of the Constitution.
.

 

[emilynghiem]

There is a Constitutional Amendment that secures the right to guns. There is no Constitutional right to marry.

Even so, a sales person with an objection to guns would be permitted not to ring up a gun sale.

There is no Constitutional right to marry. ?? Yes there is. The Supreme court has rules on numerous occasions that marriage is a right, and now, since Obergefell v. Hodges, same sex marriage is a right. It is a binding precedent -part of constitutional law as valid as any enumerated right.

Dear TheProgressivePatriot

Many people would disagree and say it takes legislative action, not judicial, to create laws and rights.
If you are going to amend the Constitution, where is the Constitutional Amendment and ratification?

Same with radically altering the federal govt authority to mandate insurance, which many argue
would require a Constitutional Amendment granting federal govt such new reaches of authority.

The judiciary ruled that the ACA was Constitutional as a tax, but Congress did not vote on this as a tax.
And if you look at the Congressional vote, that was split by party, this shows that the bill was biased
by political beliefs; and by the First Amendment, govt is not supposed to establish beliefs, nor regulate on the basis of religion or penalize people whose creed prevents them from complying with the mandates against their beliefs.

These laws do not pass Constitutional standards universally for all the citizens of America who deserve equal representation.

I believe the challenges to these laws will eventually prevail, similar to how Bush's mandates that were overreaching and exceeded Constitutional limits on govt were also challenged and compelled him to retract his arguments for going to war that were never proven but remain faith based.

The arguments about right to marriage and right to health care are also faith based.
So if people are going to pass faith-based mandates through govt, this has to be by consensus
of the people affected or else you are violating the First and Fourteenth Amendment.

If you do not even consider the beliefs of other people to have standing, that's why oppression happens.
By dehumanizing and subjugating other people as not counting,
depriving them of equal rights and liberties by declaring them void.
================
personal note: So interesting, TheProgressivePatriot
if people were worried that you were going to be some neo-neocon,
well, if I am more hardcore Constitutionalist than you are as a fellow progressive,
then maybe I am the "socialist nationalistic-nazi" people are really afraid of,
and you are a "liberal light" compared with me. Maybe next to me,
you won't look so scary after all, but will come across as relatively harmless!

If so, perhaps we can play good cop, bad cop. People like liberals they can entrap and corner into contradictions.
They can't always deal with me saying I'm a progressive Democrat because I'll actually agree on Constitutional
principles, hold them to the same, and turn the tables and corner them into contradictions.

Liberals aren't supposed to be able to defend and win Constitutional arguments.
If you do what liberals normally do, and just depend on Govt instead of Constitutional laws to defend equal rights, then you should fit with the stereotypes of liberals where people can easily pick apart your arguments.

If rights depend on govt to establish and defend, then people will never be equal that way; because that means people in govt positions or with party influence have more power than people who aren't represented by either.

Whereas for the opposite, where govt follows and reflects where people agree to contract with each other,
then all people can be educated and empowered to enforce and exercise authority of law themselves first,
and then they can be represented equally in govt whether directly or indirectly.

I don't know where I stand on the scale from left to right compared with you.
But on a scale of "scary to think about," I probably come across as a more frightening threat.

Dear Emily,

When you first showed up here, I saw you as a person who might have some fresh new ideas that could bring a divided country together. However, it has become apparent to me that you are living in a fantasy world where everyone, regardless of their views or actions is right and should and can be accommodated. In order to achieve that goal in your mind, you stretch the bounds of reality and employ bizarre theories about how our legal system works. Case in point. You said:

Many people would disagree and say it takes legislative action, not judicial, to create laws and rights. If you are going to amend the Constitution, where is the Constitutional Amendment and ratification?

This shows an abysmal understanding of constitutional law on your part. It matters little what” many people” would say. Many people would say that the earth is only 6,000 years old and that the sun revolves around it. The fact is that the court interprets laws passed by congress and the legislatures and thus shapes their meaning and application. That is called case law, and yes, sometimes court made law. That is the reality of how things work.

The court also determines the constitutionality of laws. Regarding marriage equality, the court did not amend the constitution. The constitution does not specifically address marriage and no amendment is necessary to extend the right to marry to same sex couples. They simply and appropriately invalidated state laws that banned same sex marriage. Yes it is that simple, yet to persist in trying to make it more complicated than it is.

As for religious freedom. To those who believe that the very act of same sex couples getting married is a violation of their religious freedom because they must breath the same air and walk the same earth with them, I say tough shit. Get over it. That is your psychosis and your problem. This is a secular society and a secular government. Yes Emily, there is such a thing as right and wrong and everyone cannot and should not be accommodated and respected.

I had previously asked you how it would be possible to do so, what it would look like in reality and all I’ve gotten back is more gibberish about “faith based mandates “ and “dehumanizing and subjugating other people as not counting", and "depriving them of equal rights and liberties by declaring them void” Emily, these people who you speak of are the ones seeking to dehumanize and subjugating other people as not counting, and do not deserve the time of day, leave alone the right to be heard and accommodated. They are bullies and theocrats who do not respect the rights of those who do not believe as they do. There cannot be and need not be a consensus. You consider yourself a Constitutionalist, but in order to actually be a Constitutionalist, you need to get a much better understanding of the Constitution.
.

Dear TheProgressivePatriot When it comes to religious beliefs, neither side will budge. I recognize this and I am NOT in denial.
I am talking about Political Reality.

You in fact prove the very point I am making
about political beliefs and how neither you nor opponents can see it any other way. This is EXACTLY what I mean by requiring separation of beliefs by party.

The DIFFERENCE my friend is that true Constitutionalists can be held to putting the Constitutional laws first, before their own beliefs, such as the Prolife Christians have to do all the time, even though they religious disagree. I find this harder for the left to do who don't have the same convictions to put the Constitution and beliefs of others equal to their own. I suspect it is the fear of bullying by the right that prevents giving equal religious freedom to all people, since the right is more organized by church affiliation and this is generally feared as being abused.

By my experience, I have found prolife opponents on the right to submit to checks against abuses by citing Constitutional and Christian laws. So I am not afraid to enforce these standards to prevent abuses that otherwise discriminate and exclude views and people from the left.

I'm sorry if you do not have the same experience and confidence in how well the laws work to establish agreement and collaboration between people of different views.

Whatever level of consensus you believe is not possible has already been done before. It happens all the time where I work with people of opposing views. Mediation allows all people to be heard and participate equally, without fear of being bullied coerced or excluded by the other side, where the decision depends on where they agree so that becomes the driving force, not bullying to silence intimidate and oppress each other. It is empowering and liberating, and the consensus process still allows other means to be used, such as majority rule, super majority, arbitration by a judge or third party; but not vice versa, limiting participants to arbitration or majority rule does not always allow all conflicts to be addressed where the other systems get abused to bully to dominate the process.

If you haven't tried this, I encourage you to do so.

I learned the hard way that by NOT listening to the consent of all people in a conflict, bullying and abuses go unchecked. I live in the only historic district left in America of Freed Slave churches, with TWO national historic designations for Civil Rights landmarks, DESTROYED by abuses of govt to censor and deny the equal protection of rights, interests and representation by the people defending national history.

It was a very expensive lesson to learn that we need to enforce the laws on a higher standard of ethics than just majority rule or lawsuits, because the people with MORE legal resources and political backing will override people with less.

The Good News is that the solutions that came out of this district can help reform govt,
and end the problems of political disparity that otherwise encourage and reward bullying.

So I hope those will answer the problems we are facing today, and make up for the millions in taxes misspent destroying irreplaceable national history because we didn't enforce equal justice and equal protections of the law as our Constitution claims.

I found that mediation and consensus would have protected our national history and interests, and still allow for the freedom of others to pursue and defend their beliefs as well.

Consensus does not prevent or preclude other people and other means beliefs and approaches. But the lack of consensus that leads to bullying DOES exclude and censor people from the process. So I go for the more inclusive approach that doesn't bar all other approaches from being pursued and defended as well WITHOUT conflict.

Thanks TheProgressivePatriot and I hope these solutions prove to be more sustainable, ethical and empowering for all people who otherwise fear political bullying as the only driving force in govt. I believe consent of the governed is the driving force and will win out in the end as it is the ONLY thing I know that has settled conflicts and established peace and respect.

 

[JakeStarkey]

There is a Constitutional Amendment that secures the right to guns. There is no Constitutional right to marry.

Even so, a sales person with an objection to guns would be permitted not to ring up a gun sale.

There is no Constitutional right to marry. ?? Yes there is. The Supreme court has rules on numerous occasions that marriage is a right, and now, since Obergefell v. Hodges, same sex marriage is a right. It is a binding precedent -part of constitutional law as valid as any enumerated right.

Dear TheProgressivePatriot

Many people would disagree and say it takes legislative action, not judicial, to create laws and rights.
If you are going to amend the Constitution, where is the Constitutional Amendment and ratification?

Same with radically altering the federal govt authority to mandate insurance, which many argue
would require a Constitutional Amendment granting federal govt such new reaches of authority.

The judiciary ruled that the ACA was Constitutional as a tax, but Congress did not vote on this as a tax.
And if you look at the Congressional vote, that was split by party, this shows that the bill was biased
by political beliefs; and by the First Amendment, govt is not supposed to establish beliefs, nor regulate on the basis of religion or penalize people whose creed prevents them from complying with the mandates against their beliefs.

These laws do not pass Constitutional standards universally for all the citizens of America who deserve equal representation.

I believe the challenges to these laws will eventually prevail, similar to how Bush's mandates that were overreaching and exceeded Constitutional limits on govt were also challenged and compelled him to retract his arguments for going to war that were never proven but remain faith based.

The arguments about right to marriage and right to health care are also faith based.
So if people are going to pass faith-based mandates through govt, this has to be by consensus
of the people affected or else you are violating the First and Fourteenth Amendment.

If you do not even consider the beliefs of other people to have standing, that's why oppression happens.
By dehumanizing and subjugating other people as not counting,
depriving them of equal rights and liberties by declaring them void.
================
personal note: So interesting, TheProgressivePatriot
if people were worried that you were going to be some neo-neocon,
well, if I am more hardcore Constitutionalist than you are as a fellow progressive,
then maybe I am the "socialist nationalistic-nazi" people are really afraid of,
and you are a "liberal light" compared with me. Maybe next to me,
you won't look so scary after all, but will come across as relatively harmless!

If so, perhaps we can play good cop, bad cop. People like liberals they can entrap and corner into contradictions.
They can't always deal with me saying I'm a progressive Democrat because I'll actually agree on Constitutional
principles, hold them to the same, and turn the tables and corner them into contradictions.

Liberals aren't supposed to be able to defend and win Constitutional arguments.
If you do what liberals normally do, and just depend on Govt instead of Constitutional laws to defend equal rights, then you should fit with the stereotypes of liberals where people can easily pick apart your arguments.

If rights depend on govt to establish and defend, then people will never be equal that way; because that means people in govt positions or with party influence have more power than people who aren't represented by either.

Whereas for the opposite, where govt follows and reflects where people agree to contract with each other,
then all people can be educated and empowered to enforce and exercise authority of law themselves first,
and then they can be represented equally in govt whether directly or indirectly.

I don't know where I stand on the scale from left to right compared with you.
But on a scale of "scary to think about," I probably come across as a more frightening threat.

Dear Emily,

When you first showed up here, I saw you as a person who might have some fresh new ideas that could bring a divided country together. However, it has become apparent to me that you are living in a fantasy world where everyone, regardless of their views or actions is right and should and can be accommodated. In order to achieve that goal in your mind, you stretch the bounds of reality and employ bizarre theories about how our legal system works. Case in point. You said:

Many people would disagree and say it takes legislative action, not judicial, to create laws and rights. If you are going to amend the Constitution, where is the Constitutional Amendment and ratification?

This shows an abysmal understanding of constitutional law on your part. It matters little what” many people” would say. Many people would say that the earth is only 6,000 years old and that the sun revolves around it. The fact is that the court interprets laws passed by congress and the legislatures and thus shapes their meaning and application. That is called case law, and yes, sometimes court made law. That is the reality of how things work.

The court also determines the constitutionality of laws. Regarding marriage equality, the court did not amend the constitution. The constitution does not specifically address marriage and no amendment is necessary to extend the right to marry to same sex couples. They simply and appropriately invalidated state laws that banned same sex marriage. Yes it is that simple, yet to persist in trying to make it more complicated than it is.

As for religious freedom. To those who believe that the very act of same sex couples getting married is a violation of their religious freedom because they must breath the same air and walk the same earth with them, I say tough shit. Get over it. That is your psychosis and your problem. This is a secular society and a secular government. Yes Emily, there is such a thing as right and wrong and everyone cannot and should not be accommodated and respected.

I had previously asked you how it would be possible to do so, what it would look like in reality and all I’ve gotten back is more gibberish about “faith based mandates “ and “dehumanizing and subjugating other people as not counting", and "depriving them of equal rights and liberties by declaring them void” Emily, these people who you speak of are the ones seeking to dehumanize and subjugating other people as not counting, and do not deserve the time of day, leave alone the right to be heard and accommodated. They are bullies and theocrats who do not respect the rights of those who do not believe as they do. There cannot be and need not be a consensus. You consider yourself a Constitutionalist, but in order to actually be a Constitutionalist, you need to get a much better understanding of the Constitution.
.

Dear TheProgressivePatriot When it comes to religious beliefs, neither side will budge. I recognize this and I am NOT in denial.
I am talking about Political Reality.

You in fact prove the very point I am making
about political beliefs and how neither you nor opponents can see it any other way. This is EXACTLY what I mean by requiring separation of beliefs by party.

The DIfFERENCE mt friend is

You have to change the Constitution then.

 

[Skylar]

Including all beliefs in the democratic process does not mean they will all prevail in the laws that result.

There aren't 'two' sides on any issue. But hundreds. Perhaps thousands. As any one can hold any 'belief' they wish. That icecream makes computers work better. That babies are conceived by eating chicken eggs. That the world is only 6000 years old. Whatever they wish.

We don't take into account every possible belief for several reasons. First, that's not democracy. Democracy is the application of the will of the majority, directly or indirectly. Not the application of the beliefs of anyone.

Second, not all beliefs are equally valid. In our system of laws if you had a belief that no one should be allowed to own a gun, this conflicts with our system of laws. And would be unconstitutional if enacted as a law at any level of government. That you hold a belief doesn't mean that its compatible with our law, a good idea, or well thought through.

Third, because people disagree. Your concept of 'consensus' where we find a compromise position that everyone can agree to isn't possible in all instances. Or most of them. Sometimes people disagree. And there is no compromise.

Your conception of democracy is not democracy. Nor should be. As belief alone shouldn't be the basis of law. And isn't.

What I'm saying is many of the beliefs on both sides will "cancel each other out"
ie the beliefs EXCLUDING each others' may be equal to each other in not being universal.
while the beliefs that INCLUDE the others may end up prevailing since those accommodate the other beliefs.

Democracy isn't nor was ever meant to be 'universal'. It was meant to be the will of the majority. We limit that with individual rights. But within the constraints of these constitutional guarantees, the will of the majority has some pretty broad powers.

Again, democracy isn't what you think it is. Democracy isn't a universal agreement representing everyone's beliefs. Its a universal application of law based on the majority's beliefs.

And NO, when it comes to religious beliefs,
the LAW clearly states that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
or prohibiting the free exercise thereof
and the Fourteenth Amendment expanded equal protections of the law to states,
while the Civil Rights Act extended these to public institutions, including the concept of
not discriminating on the basis of CREED.

And so it is. But a clerk acting is the capacity of a representative of the State isn't practicing her religion. She's exercising State authority. If she is permitted to use State power to force unwilling people to follow her religion, that's the State establishing religion. Which as you noted above is a clear violation of the 1st amendment.

If her religion prevents her from doing her job, she should leave immediately. Allowing her to force her religion onto unwilling people and compel them to abide her religion in violation of the law is not 'freedom', nor democracy. Its the abuse of power. And should not happen.

 

[Skylar]

In the highly unlikely event Ted Cruz were president, I wonder how he'd react to states and localities simply ignoring the laws he and Congress put in place?

Why that would be a violation of the constitution and a dismissal of the will of the people in electing Congress and the President.

Republicans are in favor of local control only to the extent that it allows them control. The moment it doesn't, they dismiss the entire concept.