Ted Cruz backs county clerks denying marriage licenses to gay couples

[emilynghiem]

Before there was a centralized government that oversaw all functions, churches recorded events important to their congregation.

So?

There is nothing to stop counties or states ending the practice of issuing marriage licenses. In the states that recognize common law marriage a license isn't necessary.

The suprene court ruled that same sex couples cannot be denied a marriage license. If gays want common law marriage too, they will have to ask the court for another ruling.

Sure there is. The Obergefell ruling. Which finds that a state must issue a marriage license to same sex couples. Here's the questions the Obergefell ruling answers:

1) Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to license a marriage between two people of the same sex?

2) Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-state?

And the Supreme Court answered yes to both questions. So a State is required to license a marriage between two people of the same sex....but they don't have to issue a license to two people of the same sex?

Um, that dog won't hunt. You're clearly wrong.

Dear Skylar

If you base what is Constitutional and justified as lawful on what Courts say,
then slavery would still be in effect. There was plenty of cases
where property laws were enforced by Courts, and any Slave
freed "illegally" would have to be returned to the rightful owners, just like any other form of property.

Courts and Governments enforced these laws.

Other Court rulings protested and challenged (if not changed or in process of):
* the KELO decision where the Court ruled in favor of the use of eminent domain
to seize private property based on "increased profits and tax revenue"
* the Citizens United ruling that is widely rejected as not representing or protecting people equally

The mistake I see even our TOP leaders and politicians making is
NOT recognizing POLITICAL BELIEFS

Once you identify which issues involve Political Beliefs, then it becomes CLEAR why these cases are so hotly contested and flip back and forth 50/50 because BOTH beliefs on BOTH sides are EQUALLY protected by law.
That's why you will see so many critical decisions by Congress and Courts split in half 50/50, because both sides represent the diversity of beliefs of the American public, divided nearly equally in half.

* The gay marriage, marriage equality, and marriage in general involves personal beliefs that can't be dictated by govt forcing people to change their beliefs from one side to another to avoid fines or punishment.
* Belief in health care as a right, versus faith in free market and free choice in health care as a personal decision, including spiritual and financial decisions that are ultimately the responsibility of citizens to manage, not govt
* abortion, euthanasia, death penalty, suicide, and other issues of termination of life
* beliefs about birthright, citizenship and immigrants; beliefs about human rights and classes of citizenship
* also gun rights and voting rights are symbolically sacred to people where these become religiously held

If the people and politicians can AGREE to treat these key issues with mutual respect for ALL beliefs equally,
and quit trying to judge and DISCRIMINATE against one creed or another, we could focus on conflict resolution to revise policies or reform govt to AVOID areas of religious or political beliefs from clashing.

We have a bunch of discrimination and bullying going on, because govt is being abused to establish BELIEFS.

 

[emilynghiem]

Judge Ky. clerk must issue gay marriage licenses

“It reaffirms the idea that we’ve been trying to stress all along, which is that individual elected officials are not allowed to govern according to their own private religious beliefs,” he said. “That’s just not the way we do things in America.”

-- quote from lawyer Dan Canon representing a couple denied a marriage license,
where the Kentucky clerk refusing to issue them is being ordered to do so regardless of her personal beliefs

Again, what lawyers, judges and federal officials are missing is that for the Courts to ENDORSE the belief in "marriage as a right" ***IS**** LETTING PERSONAL BELIEFS AFFECT GOVERNMENT DECISIONS!!!

Not all people share this belief, yet it is being judged as right/wrong/Constitutionally necessary
instead of REMAINING NEUTRAL.

So Canon's statement explains what is wrong with the ruling to begin with!
The clerk is pointing OUT where there is a bias and conflict with beliefs,
but this is being treated as if "gay marriage is the default" and any conflicting beliefs are in violation of law.

But the opposite is true.

Both beliefs are equally held in sincerity by members of the public,
and the ruling FAILING to acknowledge BOTH beliefs/creeds as equally valid are causing an imposition by govt.

Either remove marriage from the state so this doesn't force people to compromise their beliefs, either way,
or have an agreement to allow ALL references to beliefs to be established and implemented in govt equally
(if people are REALLY going for this precedent set by the Court to establish the belief in marriage as a right
and health care as a right, then all beliefs should have equal opportunity and not be barred by 'separation of church and state' since this isn't being enforced for secular political beliefs). This opens the door for:
* prolife beliefs equally as prochoice without discriminating against either one
* gun rights and gun control beliefs must be free to implement equally without infringing on one belief or another
* etc. etc.

So if this is what people want, to open up the door for govt to ESTABLISH political beliefs for everyone to follow, then ALL CREEDS should have the same opportunity and drop all arguments of 'separation of church and state"

If the Courts keep establishing political beliefs, based on "what their religious convictions tell them should be respected as a right or not" then if any beliefs are denied, this can be argued as political discrimination on the basis of CREED. Very dangerous precedent. Can either lead to all out peace, forcing everyone to include and work with ALL beliefs and no longer exclude anyone, or all out war. Like Hindus and Muslims in Pakistan/India.
Or Catholics and the Lutheran Reformation that split off the Protestants to form their own churches.

I hope we can resolve this civilly, by asking all leaders, parties, and govt officials to recognize and respect the BELIEFS at stake, and quit abusing govt to endorse one CREED over another, also violating the Constitution.

If you are going to fix a problem of equal protection of laws from discrimination, it makes sense to me not to violate that same law. Any ruling or solution should satisfy all standards and include all beliefs equally;
not commit an additional discrimination. That isn't correcting the problem; two wrongs don't make a right, but double the damage suffered on both sides.

 

[Deleted member 53821]

Change is hard to swallow for some. Just look at the posters on this board with everything from the necessity of the wot to gay marriage.
We are literally being governed by a bunch of children. There are issues worthy of not giving an inch of your ground.....this is not one of them.

Americans are a bunch of ******* children, hence the problem...

Thank god we authoritarian mother and father to fix our childnessness.

 

[Deleted member 53821]

The resistance to gay marriage will only make it easier for an eventual amendment.

 

[The Rabbi]

And the two most important paragraphs:

Factual situations may arise in which the county clerk seeks to delegate the issuance of same-sex marriage licenses due to a religious objection, but every employee also has a religious objection to participating in same-sex-marriage licensure. In that scenario, were a clerk to issue traditional marriage licenses while refusing to issue same-sex marriage licenses, it is conceivable that an applicant for a same-sex marriage license may claim a violation of the constitution. If instead, a county clerk chooses to issue no marriage licenses at all, it raises at least two questions. First, a clerk opting to issue no licenses at all may find himself or herself in tension with the requirement under state law that a clerk "shall" issue marriage licenses to conforming applications. TEX. FAM. CODE ANN.§ 2.008(a) (West 2006). A court must balance this statutory duty against the clerk's constitutional rights as well as statutory rights under the Religious Freedom Restoration Acts. Second, a court must also weigh the constitutional right of the applicant to obtain a same-sex marriage license. Such a factually specific inquiry is beyond the scope of what this opinion can answer.

The problem with that interpretation is that the clerk is a representative of the State. The State has no religious objection, as it has no religion. And if an individual representative of the state can deny state services based on their personal religious convictions......wouldn't that be the imposition of their religious beliefs *though* the state?

We're not talking about a religious motivation for voting, for example. But an express and explicit religiously motivated act by a state representative, wielding state power, that forces state citizens to adhere to the individual representative's religious beliefs.

It would be akin to a muslim judge refusing to rule in a manner inconsistent with Sharia law. Or to refuse to offer any rulings on any divorce cases until sharia law governs divorce law.

And the State of Texas say 'okay, cool'.

The "opinion" of the AG is hugely ambiguous. He really does not tell clerks that they can refuse. He says that if they refuse, they might be able to claim that they were permitted to do so according to their faith. He even cites to the RFRA that allowed Hobby Lobby to opt out of providing contraceptive coverage without realizing that the RFRA has no application to state employees or their actions. It is a federal law that only applies to federal law. .

Once the state starts to put a priority of the religious beliefs of its employees over fairly executing the laws there is no going back

You can't make a case for ONLY same sex marriage and ONLY Christians

Fallacy. The religious beliefs of its citizens IS the law. Protecting the religious rights of Americans is a primary responsibility of government.

Yes. What you just said is certainly a fallacy. Thanks for labeling it first.

Mere assertion fallacy.
Libs lose 100% f the time.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The resistance to gay marriage will only make it easier for an eventual amendment.

The majority resistance comes from those who support Marriage Equality and resists through who do not support such. You will lose.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Emily has the right of it. No true libertarian or conservative will want the government institution the beliefs of organized religion as the law of the land. Only far right reactionary Americans would want progressive statist action to politically authorize such beliefs.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The law for now is settled: Marriage Equality is the law of the land.

Also Cruz's call for an amendment to permit abortions only for the life of the mother is ridiculous.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The resistance to gay marriage will only make it easier for an eventual amendment.

Nonsense.

There will be no 'amendment.'

 

[emilynghiem]

The resistance to gay marriage will only make it easier for an eventual amendment.

Dear SuperDemocrat I think the Amendment needed would address "political beliefs" in general, and cover ALL cases, not just marriage equality, or else it isn't fair to the right to life beliefs that are barred by saying "individual choice" trumps it. If people can't be punished for choosing NOT to birth a baby, how is it fair to punish citizens for choosing NOT to endorse or participate in gay marriage except by free choice; if you are going to say that the right to marriage for "gay people" is so fundamental to equal human rights that it needs to be forced by law, regardless of people's beliefs for or against, what is to prevent the right to life for "unborn persons" from being defended on the grounds it is necessary for equal human rights?*

If you are going to allow Govt to establish political beliefs by majority rule, this would have to apply equally to ANY political belief getting passed as long as there is majority of votes or justices. Somehow, I don't think people are going to approve of each other's beliefs getting passed by majority, but would require consensus on how such laws are written.

I believe this push will come from the Democrats taking responsibility for the messes caused by pushing the right to marriage and right to health care as political BELIEFS on the rest of the nation, in VIOLATION of both prochoice principles, separation of church and states, as well as First Amendment equal protection of religious freedom, Fourteenth Amendment equal protection of the laws, and Civil Rights not to suffer penalty discriminating on the basis of creed.

The laws cannot "overcorrect" to the point of abridging the equal rights and freedom of citizens of opposing beliefs. The laws need to be neutral and accommodate all beliefs equally, or they are unconstitutional by establishing a creed.
=======

*If you are going to say it causes more damage to punish women for abortion, than it causes to impose gay marriage on the public; then it can be equally argued to require gay marriage and social benefits to be administered through private churches and programs (and not in public) is less of an imposition than the current system of requiring all prolife and abortion prevention to be done by "free choice" in private and not mandated or implemented through the state either.
*If you are going to argue that all the prolife activities can still take place by free choice without going through govt, the same can be said for all gay marriage and social benefits that do not have to be run through govt either, but can be managed by private groups the same way people expect the Prolife policies and programs to be funded and conducted by individual free choice outside of govt laws and mandates.

 

[emilynghiem]

The law for now is settled: Marriage Equality is the law of the land.

Also Cruz's call for an amendment to permit abortions only for the life of the mother is ridiculous.

Both are pushing political beliefs through Govt.
Biased policies need to be rewritten so they don't abridge the religious freedom of people whose creeds are otherwise discriminated against by Govt, instead of represented and included equally, as required by Constitutional standards and ethics.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The law for now is settled: Marriage Equality is the law of the land.

Also Cruz's call for an amendment to permit abortions only for the life of the mother is ridiculous.

Both are pushing political beliefs through Govt.
Biased policies need to be rewritten so they don't abridge the religious freedom of people whose creeds are otherwise discriminated against by Govt, instead of represented and included equally, as required by Constitutional standards and ethics.

Emily no one is going to make you have an abortion or marry someone of your own sex.

You have no right to tell others what to do about abortion or marriage equality.

 

[emilynghiem]

Emily has the right of it. No true libertarian or conservative will want the government institution the beliefs of organized religion as the law of the land. Only far right reactionary Americans would want progressive statist action to politically authorize such beliefs.

And same with the left. Only the real far left who are truly universally inclusive and prochoice
will not push this reactionary leftist politics that excludes and incites opponents on the right.

JakeStarkey
1. Because the Christians and Conservatives can be checked by their own laws,
that is why the prolife is kept in check. Because they obey the civil laws that require to
respect Constitutional protections of beliefs.
But this is TAKEN ADVANTAGE of by
left secularists who only expect the bar on religious beliefs to apply to Christians and Conservative opponents
AND DON'T COMMIT TO THE SAME STANDARDS APPLIED TO SECULAR BELIEFS
such as right to health care, right to marriage.

The left such as Seawytch are quick to agree with Courts when they AGREE
with beliefs on marriage, but are just as quick to DENOUNCE abusing Courts
this way if beliefs such as right to life or the Citizens United rulings get endorsed, for example.

The same problem remains.

If people AGREE with the decisions they will argue it is constitutional protection of their beliefs.
If they DISAGREE with decisions they will argue it is discriminatory against their beliefs.


2. Both parties are rewarded for only defending their beliefs and attacking the others.
until we change this paradigm and start Enforcing Constitutional Equality and Ethics,
BEFORE partisan beliefs, then both sides are guilty of abusing the process to push their beliefs
and discriminate against the creeds of the other party!

3. if the Democrats and Republicans have such a VESTED conflict of interest in keeping this going,
it make take a class level petition or action by the GREENS and LIBERTARIANS to
demand both parties to pay back the cost to taxpayers of past abuses:
* such as holding Democrats responsible for ACA to pay all the costs of compliance
and for changing the mandate to either optional or only required for people who
either violated laws and went through due process to lose liberties,
or who agree to be under the mandates and receive benefits under those terms.
* and such as holding Republicans responsible for contested war contracts that
cost taxpayers in the trillions when it wasn't proven that the Iraqi people were
responsible for any involvement in funding or supporting the 9/11 terrorist attacks
* and hold BOTH parties responsible for paying back the public
an estimated 24 billion from the govt shutdown over the ACA budget alone.
then we can organize by party and reimburse the 24 billion in credits to each
group agreeing to set up their own "health care exchange" fo rtheir members
that is completely VOLUNTARY to join, fund, follow and participate in democratically
since personal, political, religious, spiritual and financial beliefs are invovled in
health care decisions and how to provide it for the populations people believe in serving.

I think we will see a rise in organization where the institutions not checked by govt
* media
* parties
* religious groups or large corporations with collective influence
may need a separate system of representation by identity/affiliation
so all people can have representation, and then facilitate to resolve
conflicts and form a CONSENSUS on each policy where these
beliefs and interests are divided. Otherwise for gov to pass a biased
law favoring one interest/belief over another is a political conflict of interest
in violation of the code of ethics for govt service, Fourteenth Amendment
equal protections of the law for all citizens, and Civil Rights violations of
equal representation regardless of creed. You can't just buy out the
bigger candidate or media with bigger money and expect to enforce
equal justice under law.

These other areas need Constitutional standards applied equally,
but since they are OUTSIDE govt, the enforcement must be
voluntary and come from the people. We can organize our own
conventions bringing together reps from different groups, and similar
to the Senate we can organize pairs from each group and mediate
conflicts, then present proposed solutions to the official govt agencies and branches.

either way we need to address political beliefs
and how to resolve public policy where it does not favor
one creed while discriminating against another.

 

[emilynghiem]

The law for now is settled: Marriage Equality is the law of the land.

Also Cruz's call for an amendment to permit abortions only for the life of the mother is ridiculous.

Both are pushing political beliefs through Govt.
Biased policies need to be rewritten so they don't abridge the religious freedom of people whose creeds are otherwise discriminated against by Govt, instead of represented and included equally, as required by Constitutional standards and ethics.

Emily no one is going to make you have an abortion or marry someone of your own sex.

You have no right to tell others what to do about abortion or marriage equality.

That's right, that why that should be kept PRIVATE and not mandated by implementing through govt.

Right now, there are already cases of people being FORCED to participate in gay wedding activities
or else face fines or shut down their business.

There are adoption centers shut down to prevent from running into this issue of gay couples
and conflicts over discrimination due to religious beliefs.

This is being forced on people, JakeStarkey

But NOTHING is stopping people from having gay marriages and benefits through their choice
of church, nonprofit or political programs they are free to set up and manage themselves!

This is just political laziness to railroad it through govt instead of doing the work to set it up directly
like churches set up their own prolife programs, so why not gay benefits programs and invest tax credits in those?

Sadly the left would have MORE FREEDOM and experience TRUE EQUALITY
by setting up our own programs instead of depending on politicians to run this through govt for everything.

There would be more direct representation, control over policies and funding,
and best of all, Training and experience in national levels of administration by
organizing benefits and health care, etc by party. More minorities would learn
how to run and manage their own govt so there is no more disparity, exploitation and oppressing going on,
taking advantage of "disenfranchising grassroots people from power" so that authority gets ABUSED to control the masses.

All the empowerment and education can shift BACK to the grassroots level
and train the actual membership in parties to govern their own communities and districts
to direct resources and policies to fulfill their values and beliefs.

If only the people unite and DEMAND that the parties pay us back the billions
we are owed from past abuses, and invest those credits in education and training
so the people can create jobs and internships doing ALL the social services being promised through govt.

if people are the govt we need to be creating and providing these services.
Not depending on politicians to lobby with corporate interests and keep pushing policies that depend on federal govt.
We need to reclaim the same RIGHTS but on a local level where we enforce and enact these programs ourselves.

The money keeps getting wasted because of the infighting over federal policies not designed
to handle the localized state matters that people need to decide and manage democratically.
there is too much diversity to create one policy on the federal level covering all the cultures and beliefs,
both religious and political.

so it just makes sense that if people are already organized by party,
then to use that structure to manage the social programs so everyone gets to be under the program
matching their beliefs!

why not organize by party and there doesn't have to be one policy for all.

The traditional marriages can be managed through one group so all the members learn how to administer
their own benefits and contracts democratically.
And the gay marriages can be managed through another group that recognizes those.

Or else keep the language in the state laws NEUTRAL where it doesn't mention the social relationship
at all but only governs the financial and legal/custody agreements and duties, not the social roles of the partners,
something like that.

There are any number of ways to resolve this.
I even mentioned letting the prolife have their own health care track so they know they
aren't funding any objectional abortion or birth control they don't believe in.

If they are allowed their own health care program separate from the federal mandates
they don't believe in, then maybe an agreement can be reached on marriage as well.

Why not bring parties together and work out what points work and don't work?
And organize resources to fulfill these programs instead of wasting BILLIONS of dollars fighting politically.

We'd be better off investing that money directly in separate programs
rather than trying to push one belief for all people through federal govt!!!

 

[JakeStarkey]

Emily, your proposal will not work in a constitutional, republican government, which is what we have. Your minority rights are not violated because no one is forcing you to have an abortion, no one is forcing you to marry someone of the same sex.

 

[emilynghiem]

Emily, your proposal will not work in a constitutional, republican government, which is what we have. Your minority rights are not violated because no one is forcing you to have an abortion, no one is forcing you to marry someone of the same sex.

Dear JakeStarkey
When atheist sue to remove references to GOD or Crosses
nobody is forcing them to become Christian either.

Care to explain that?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Emily, your proposal will not work in a constitutional, republican government, which is what we have. Your minority rights are not violated because no one is forcing you to have an abortion, no one is forcing you to marry someone of the same sex.

Dear JakeStarkeyWhen atheist sue to remove references to GOD or Crosses nobody is forcing them to become Christian either. Care to explain that?

Their argument is that organized religion and its artifacts should not be allowed in the public forum. However our civil religion in public affairs has been recognized from the earliest days. The line is thin, apparently, as to what is accepted. Apparently, crosses and 10 commandment plaques and prayers in public school are not.

 

[Debra K]

The law for now is settled: Marriage Equality is the law of the land.

Also Cruz's call for an amendment to permit abortions only for the life of the mother is ridiculous.

Both are pushing political beliefs through Govt.
Biased policies need to be rewritten so they don't abridge the religious freedom of people whose creeds are otherwise discriminated against by Govt, instead of represented and included equally, as required by Constitutional standards and ethics.

Emily no one is going to make you have an abortion or marry someone of your own sex.

You have no right to tell others what to do about abortion or marriage equality.

That's right, that why that should be kept PRIVATE and not mandated by implementing through govt.

Right now, there are already cases of people being FORCED to participate in gay wedding activities
or else face fines or shut down their business.

There are adoption centers shut down to prevent from running into this issue of gay couples
and conflicts over discrimination due to religious beliefs.

This is being forced on people, JakeStarkey

But NOTHING is stopping people from having gay marriages and benefits through their choice
of church, nonprofit or political programs they are free to set up and manage themselves!

This is just political laziness to railroad it through govt instead of doing the work to set it up directly
like churches set up their own prolife programs, so why not gay benefits programs and invest tax credits in those?

Sadly the left would have MORE FREEDOM and experience TRUE EQUALITY
by setting up our own programs instead of depending on politicians to run this through govt for everything.

There would be more direct representation, control over policies and funding,
and best of all, Training and experience in national levels of administration by
organizing benefits and health care, etc by party. More minorities would learn
how to run and manage their own govt so there is no more disparity, exploitation and oppressing going on,
taking advantage of "disenfranchising grassroots people from power" so that authority gets ABUSED to control the masses.

All the empowerment and education can shift BACK to the grassroots level
and train the actual membership in parties to govern their own communities and districts
to direct resources and policies to fulfill their values and beliefs.

If only the people unite and DEMAND that the parties pay us back the billions
we are owed from past abuses, and invest those credits in education and training
so the people can create jobs and internships doing ALL the social services being promised through govt.

if people are the govt we need to be creating and providing these services.
Not depending on politicians to lobby with corporate interests and keep pushing policies that depend on federal govt.
We need to reclaim the same RIGHTS but on a local level where we enforce and enact these programs ourselves.

The money keeps getting wasted because of the infighting over federal policies not designed
to handle the localized state matters that people need to decide and manage democratically.
there is too much diversity to create one policy on the federal level covering all the cultures and beliefs,
both religious and political.

so it just makes sense that if people are already organized by party,
then to use that structure to manage the social programs so everyone gets to be under the program
matching their beliefs!

why not organize by party and there doesn't have to be one policy for all.

The traditional marriages can be managed through one group so all the members learn how to administer
their own benefits and contracts democratically.
And the gay marriages can be managed through another group that recognizes those.

Or else keep the language in the state laws NEUTRAL where it doesn't mention the social relationship
at all but only governs the financial and legal/custody agreements and duties, not the social roles of the partners,
something like that.

There are any number of ways to resolve this.
I even mentioned letting the prolife have their own health care track so they know they
aren't funding any objectional abortion or birth control they don't believe in.

If they are allowed their own health care program separate from the federal mandates
they don't believe in, then maybe an agreement can be reached on marriage as well.

Why not bring parties together and work out what points work and don't work?
And organize resources to fulfill these programs instead of wasting BILLIONS of dollars fighting politically.

We'd be better off investing that money directly in separate programs
rather than trying to push one belief for all people through federal govt!!!

Emily:

Please review the following definition:

Ignorance Definition of ignorance by Merriam-Webster

Ignorance: the state or fact of being ignorant : lack of knowledge, education, or awareness

Please read the court's order and memorandum:

0 15-cv-00044 43 Equality Case Files

The court is not violating the clerk's "freedom of religion". The clerk, however, is an agent of the state and she is the one who is imposing her religious beliefs on everyone else in her county by refusing to perform the duties of her elected office. That is why the people whom she is oppressing were able to obtain a preliminary injunction against her official enforcement of an unconstitutional policy.

If you have trouble understanding the court's decision, please ask for guidance. If you are unwilling to learn, however, your mind will remain imprisoned in darkness and you will "feel" unnecessary torment.

 

[emilynghiem]

Emily, your proposal will not work in a constitutional, republican government, which is what we have. Your minority rights are not violated because no one is forcing you to have an abortion, no one is forcing you to marry someone of the same sex.

Dear JakeStarkeyWhen atheist sue to remove references to GOD or Crosses nobody is forcing them to become Christian either. Care to explain that?

Their argument is that organized religion and its artifacts should not be allowed in the public forum. However our civil religion in public affairs has been recognized from the earliest days. The line is thin, apparently, as to what is accepted. Apparently, crosses and 10 commandment plaques and prayers in public school are not.

Dear JakeStarkey
You do realize you are making a "leap of faith" when equating
gay rights with civil rights, that not all people make.
You may be right, but as long as this is not proven, it is still making a
faith based argument that govt cannot require of people to follow.

The people who argue that gay is a BEHAVIOR
cannot be proven right or wrong, and neither can
the people prove one way or another that
homosexuality is a choice or not a choice and cannot be changed.

There are equal cases of people arguing they
HAVE been able to change so it's not necessarily fixed by birth.

It could be either way, so all beliefs on both sides are
FAITH BASED.

So it is not necessarily a proven human right.
For the same reasons, the right to life cannot base their
arguments on when does life begin since it is faith based
when a person's soul and will is formed.

Both the right to life and beliefs in marriage, either way,
are equally protected in terms of CREEDS.

We CAN prove these are all CREEDS.

So yes, for Equal Civil Rights, on the Basis of CREED
both the beliefs about orientation and marriage on all sides
can be defended under law as not to be discriminated against.

Thank you JakeStarkey

 

[JakeStarkey]

There is clearly, according to SCOTUS, no leap of faith about marriage equality and civil rights.

That's decided and over for a growing majority of Americans. To overturn it by amendment in this environment would be almost impossible.

You are not discriminated in what you believe and what you can do, and you will not be allowed to discriminate against others. Neither marriage nor abortion are private matters is the point. As long as government is involved, all have to be treated the same.

If public accommodation laws in a state tell a baker he has to offer equal public access, the baker needs to make it public what he will bake and what he will not. He can bake a cake and frosting it. He can say all customers have to decorate it after that on their own.