Ted Cruz backs county clerks denying marriage licenses to gay couples

[emilynghiem]

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.

Dear JakeStarkey
The judges on the court are humans, too.
If they impose their beliefs, that is still a leap of faith that
not everyone believes either!

To explain in parallel,
it can equally be shown that Bush's plan to use military action in Iraq
was equally "faith based" and people contested that on several grounds
* 1. one, it was not "proven to everyone" about the WMD and the
association with Iraq/Saddam Hussein and the 9/11 terrorist attacks
* 2, two, where was the proven national identity of the attackers (they didn't come from a recognized nation with both declaring war formally back and forth) and where was due process for the Iraqi civilians who DID suffer the collective and collateral punishment?

So even if the INTENT was not to make war or enemies between the US
and the Iraqi people, THAT'S who suffered, and who paid for the war.

All that can be argued as FAITH BASED and NOT based on proper democratic
process and laws to ensure rules of engagement are followed.

* 3, three, the enforcement of UN resolutions and processes can
ALSO be argued as outside the Constitutional limits and authority of US govt
and US taxpayers. I looked up this process, and it was not specifically agreed and voted upon that the consequence of not following the inspection procedures
"automatically authorized military action" -- that was ANOTHER leap of faith.

So the same way, JakeStarkey, it can be argued that an ADDITIONAL
Constitutional Amendment is needed in order to vote on by states the
* right to marriage added to Constitutional rights
* right to health care
instead of declaring and creating this unilaterally by judicial ruling
or making laws through courts,
this goes through LEGISLATIVE processes.

As with the issue with the Iraq decision, and arguing that a separate vote
was needed first to agree on the next step in the process after the inspections
weren't followed. And/or arguing that collective punishment of the Iraqi people
by association of Saddam Hussein with either 9/11 terrorists OR the inspections for WMD didn't follow Constitutional procedures of federal govt either.

So for Bush to declare these things, was like invoking divine law and authority
and was not given by human govt and democratic authority, if you look at it that way.

Both Bush and Obama can and have been argued as overreaching beyond
the limits and authority of federal govt, and acting on "higher" authority.
So there is no real "separation of church and state" if we are still expecting
leaders to invoke divine right to rule and make decisions outside the legal limits.

The Justices on the Supreme Court can equally be argued as
violating Amendment One by establishing a belief by policies that
discirminate on the basis of creed.

JakeStarkey just because you and I may AGREE with those beliefs
doesn't change the fact these are CREEDS and are not supposed to
be mandated by Govt.

When Govt endorsed slavery and defended property laws as legal,
that didn't change the fact this was still violating equal civil rights.

Govt endorsement does not mean it is automatically constitutional
but the vice versa, laws must be constitutional for them to carry
the weight of govt authority. Otherwise it is religious factions abusing
govt to impose their AGENDA. With political beliefs where one side or
the other is at stake, it makes sense to form a CONSENSUS so both
sides are treated equally.

We haven't done that here, and the Supreme Court also failed to make
consensus decisions and split the votes in half. So the beliefs that are
favored by govt get unconstitutionally endorsed at the expense of the
other creeds discriminated against. Whether we personally agree or
disagree with the CONTENT, these are still BELIEFS.

When we organize leaders and parties to RECOGNIZE and agree to
RESPECT each other's beliefs, we can quit abusing govt to impose back and forth.

People make "faith based" decisions all the time, and that doesn't mean it's right or final.
Where beliefs are involved, like with the right to life, people will not stop fighting until the
laws are changed that otherwise infringe on their equal protections.

So these conflicts over gay marriage will also continue until an agreement is reached
that satisfies the people on both sides. They will keep fighting for what they believe,
which is why these things don't belong in Govt. Part of the wisdom behind the 1st Amendment.

What's wrong is parties exploiting the system to push votes based on faith issues that don't really belong in federal hands. These "faith based" decisions are still in violation of the
equal civil rights of citizens who don't share those beliefs -- it may not be the INTENT
to impose on businesses and individuals, but that is the unintended consequence.
I pointed out why not follow an agreement for people to sign agreeing NOT to do business together if this is going to involving clashing beliefs? That would cover all issues
of how to handle religious reference or exercise.

 

[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?

Dear JakeStarkey
1. I am repeating this post because I would like a CONSISTENT answer from you.
How is referencing God or Crosses
forcing atheists to become Christian,
and yet they have successfully sued to remove these references
based on PRINCIPLE of separating church and state.

2. You posted the reply about ORGANIZED RELIGION.

So are you saying as long as liberals express their beliefs
as a SECULAR RELIGION, then this set of BELIEFS
is not barred from expression in public as ORGANIZED Religions are.

My question to you:
HOW IS THIS NOT DISCRIMINATION BY CREED

A. If you are not treating beliefs of people equally,
then people with beliefs expressed using religion
are UNEQUALLY barred but people who express
beliefs using secular politics are allowed to establish
THOSE beliefs through govt? really? And this is equal HOW?

B. If you keep saying because the COURT ENDORSED
the belief in right to marriage through the state,
how is that not still a violation of laws against govt establishing a belief?

It's STILL a belief, whether you or the Courts agree on right or wrong or not.

Here, JakeStarkey will this help:

A. Can't the right to marriage be protected without
implementing it through the STATE.

B. Here is where the UN Declaration of Human Rights states it:
Article 16.

• (1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
• (2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.
• (3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.

WHERE IS IT REQUIRED THAT FOR MARRIAGE TO BE PROTECTED
IT HAS TO BE THROUGH THE STATE

Banning BANS on gay marriage is not the same as endorsing it through the state.

Just like banning BANS on Islam or Buddhism, etc. is NOT the same as
writing the Islamic and Buddhist practices INTO STATE LAWS.

All marriage, funeral, communion, baptism activities can be protected
by law under FREE EXERCISE OF RELIGION and not spell them out
much less implement them through the state.

So this is not necessary to conduct or manage people's personal marriages
through the state.

If people want to have civil unions, contracts, custody and estate arrangements
that can be through the state without ANY reference to gender or orientation,
and would have a better chance of Constitutionality that attaching BELIEFS.

If people can AGREE on marriage laws, that's fine,
but as long as BELIEFS are involved it's going to impose on one side's beliefs
or the others if the laws aren't written passed and enforced by mutual agreement.

The same as with what is wrong with abortion laws,
and why death penalty rulings are still protested. Until there is an agreement,
as long as people's BELIEFS are at stake, they will keep fighting to defend their BELIEFS. Which is why govt should not make laws siding with one belief over others.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Too many fallacies in your argument, Emily, to argue about.

We are a constitutional republic, and your dual-??? partisan spheres of government will never accepted even by the majority of Americans.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Too many fallacies in your argument, Emily, to argue about.

We are a constitutional republic, and your dual-??? partisan spheres of government will never accepted even by the majority of Americans.

Emily, my consistent answer is that you do not have a constitutional right to put crosses on public grounds anymore than other religious symbols. You cannot mix organized religion and state. I am not going argue any "buts" because the law is clear, and the majority on the court has consistently agreed.

 

[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!!!

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.

Dear Debra K
Please do not insult me when you are the one failing to recognize
the political beliefs on both sides here equally.

There is just as much Wilful Ignorance in not accepting or respecting
the beliefs of others, but ASSUMING you understand these people's beliefs.

Apparently you do not, since you do not see how the laws are
affecting them. Just because you don't understand, or don't agree,
doesn't mean it doesn't COUNT.

I don't understand the full insult caused by killing a pig to insult a Muslim.
I don't see how that affects them as it does.
But my brother's college friends found out the hard way, after stringing up
a pig from lab as a "joke" on a Muslim friend who was so aggrieved he came
after them in ways that today would get him arrested and locked up for how
he reacted.

How does a dead pig affect that man's religious beliefs?
He wasn't forced to kill it. The pig was already dead before it got to lab.

For whatever reason Hindus treat cows as sacred,
conservatives worship their gun rights and right to life for the unborn,
liberals sanctify abortion rights or voting rights,
Why can't we respect when people say NO I don't CONSENT to that.

Are you saying that only the religious beliefs
we AGREE with or understand deserve to be protected by laws?

it's not like we can't find another solution that prevents imposition
because we CAN:
* in the case of transgender people using restrooms
UNISEX facilities bypass any argument or conflict over what
people BELIEVE about orientation and gender that isn't based on genetics
* in the case of marriage, this does not have to be conducted
through the public state. Parties already conduct all kinds of programs
and policies outside public govt and tax funding, where members
CHOOSE to participate and fund those platforms and programs.

So why can't marriage and social/health benefits be separated
by party?

There are already schools and church programs, national
and international businesses and nonprofits that manage
programs for their members by voluntary participation and donations.

People can set up their own coops and don't have to make
the same rules for larger than the population who AGREES to be under those terms.

If Marriage is as fundamental as free exercise of religion to each person,
then just like one's religion it can be practiced independently outside of govt.

It is just the political belief of modern Liberals to keep
establishing any rights through Govt, but that belief isn't shared
by half the population who believes that rights are inherent
in human nature by design and don't depend on govt.

The liberals are basically using govt to establish these
liberal political beliefs, and this isn't fair to citizens with conservative beliefs.

Why not let each person and party organize around their OWN beliefs,
and just keep govt to where all people from all sides AGREE so it is EQUAL.

If anyone disagrees, that is removed.
And people are rewarded if consensus is formed on laws
so THOSE can be endorsed by govt and everyone respects the same contract.

Sorry if you don't see BOTH sides as equal beliefs.

Debra K that is the best way I find to be FAIR to both
prochoice and prolife, pro gun rights and pro gun control,
pro and anti death penalty, pro and anti marriage laws,
etc. is to treat all beliefs as equal under law and not
accept laws touching beliefs unless these are by consensus of the people affected.

Just because you think someone "shouldn't be affected" does not mean they aren't.

I have found that with people's Personal Beliefs,
NO means NO. If they agree, they will let me know.
so this way, any conflicts can be addressed and
consensus policy formed if we listen to each other's limits on yes and no.

People have a right to consent and dissent.
Just because we don't agree doesn't give us the right to
override the beliefs of others and not count them as equal to ours
which may not make sense to them either!

If we want people to take our yes to mean yes,
and no to mean no,
doesn't it just make sense to respect when they say yes and no?

If we don't want people talking down and dismissing our reasons for out
beliefs, doesn't it make sense not to dismiss others for their beliefs and reasons?

Isn't that part of Equal Protection of the laws, to defend for others
the same rights we want for ourselves? Thank you Debra K

I am not ignoring all that you posted about the laws;
I'm saying all that does NOT change the fact that
people have beliefs and don't consent to the laws passed through
the state without their consent on how those are written and implemented.

It is still violating beliefs if the conflicts aren't resolved in advance
so the laws are passed by AGREEMENT with all the people the state represents.

Your view is not the only one. You can say it isn't affecting others,
but if they disagree based on beliefs, they have the right to resolve
the conflicts and have laws they agree do not violate their beliefs.

I can't dictate that for them either, I can just respect when they say it does or does not respect and include their beliefs equally. And the same with the other side.

 

[emilynghiem]

Too many fallacies in your argument, Emily, to argue about.

We are a constitutional republic, and your dual-??? partisan spheres of government will never accepted even by the majority of Americans.

Emily, my consistent answer is that you do not have a constitutional right to put crosses on public grounds anymore than other religious symbols. You cannot mix organized religion and state. I am not going argue any "buts" because the law is clear, and the majority on the court has consistently agreed.

Dear JakeStarkey
You miss my point.
I am saying that if you are not going to have organized religion mixed with state,
then why aren't the secular beliefs and religions, like the party platforms,
treated equally as organized beliefs and kept out of the govt. Do you see?
how it isn't fair to treat one set of beliefs that way and not the others.

Shouldn't ALL people and group's beliefs be treated with the same standards,
and neither abridge/prohibit or discriminate against these creeds,
nor establish them through govt (except if there is consensus, so if
everyone AGREED to have marriage laws through the state, then it's okay,
or everyone AGREED to have God on money or to use dates that reference AD
then that's okay, as long as all people are represented not any creed "imposed" on others).

 

[emilynghiem]

Too many fallacies in your argument, Emily, to argue about.

We are a constitutional republic, and your dual-??? partisan spheres of government will never accepted even by the majority of Americans.

Why are you saying we can't have both?

We already have religions that operate without going through govt.
the Parties and Media already operate without Constitutional checks as govt has.

How is organizing programs through parties against the current
constitutional govt? If anything, JakeStarkey
I would argue the OPPOSITE.

That UNTIL we agree to respect the political beliefs of parties and people EQUALLY
then these Unconstitutional party systems are ABUSED to skew the checks and
balances on govt and prevent the free exercise of religion for people who keep depending on politicians to correct the problems through govt.

The ACA is just one example. The collective vote by Party was abused to
VIOLATE the equal civil rights and protections of people who believe in free market
health care, now facing fines and penalties under a contested so-called "tax law"
that (a) taxpayers didn't vote on and (b) Congress didn't vote on as a tax either!!!
It was voted on as a public health bill, but that's not the justification the Courts used.

Had this system of recognizing political platforms as BELIEFS been practiced,
we could already have as many different exchanges or systems being developed
that people BELIEVE in funding.

Instead 24 billion was lost fighting over the terms of this bill,
by which "insurance is the only means" of receiving an exemption without
being penalized or regulated by federal govt.

That is abridging the free exercise of religion for people who
don't believe it is constitutional to mandate this through govt.
.It is not treating people of all beliefs equally.

So this party system already has allowed power and resources
to be ABUSED to violate the equal civil rights of people UNCONSTITUTIONALLY.

We are in the process of trying to fix that unconstitutional breach of contract.

So what I propose is not to change or violate the Constitutional laws/govt we have now;
but to correct violations of them by abuses of party and media outside constitutional checks, so that these Constitutional standards are FULFILLED and ENFORCED.

 

[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.

Dear Debra K
Please do not insult me when you are the one failing to recognize
the political beliefs on both sides here equally.

There is just as much Wilful Ignorance in not accepting or respecting
the beliefs of others, but ASSUMING you understand these people's beliefs.

Apparently you do not, since you do not see how the laws are
affecting them. Just because you don't understand, or don't agree,
doesn't mean it doesn't COUNT.

I don't understand the full insult caused by killing a pig to insult a Muslim.
I don't see how that affects them as it does.
But my brother's college friends found out the hard way, after stringing up
a pig from lab as a "joke" on a Muslim friend who was so aggrieved he came
after them in ways that today would get him arrested and locked up for how
he reacted.

How does a dead pig affect that man's religious beliefs?
He wasn't forced to kill it. The pig was already dead before it got to lab.

For whatever reason Hindus treat cows as sacred,
conservatives worship their gun rights and right to life for the unborn,
liberals sanctify abortion rights or voting rights,
Why can't we respect when people say NO I don't CONSENT to that.

Are you saying that only the religious beliefs
we AGREE with or understand deserve to be protected by laws?

it's not like we can't find another solution that prevents imposition
because we CAN:
* in the case of transgender people using restrooms
UNISEX facilities bypass any argument or conflict over what
people BELIEVE about orientation and gender that isn't based on genetics
* in the case of marriage, this does not have to be conducted
through the public state. Parties already conduct all kinds of programs
and policies outside public govt and tax funding, where members
CHOOSE to participate and fund those platforms and programs.

So why can't marriage and social/health benefits be separated
by party?

There are already schools and church programs, national
and international businesses and nonprofits that manage
programs for their members by voluntary participation and donations.

People can set up their own coops and don't have to make
the same rules for larger than the population who AGREES to be under those terms.

If Marriage is as fundamental as free exercise of religion to each person,
then just like one's religion it can be practiced independently outside of govt.

It is just the political belief of modern Liberals to keep
establishing any rights through Govt, but that belief isn't shared
by half the population who believes that rights are inherent
in human nature by design and don't depend on govt.

The liberals are basically using govt to establish these
liberal political beliefs, and this isn't fair to citizens with conservative beliefs.

Why not let each person and party organize around their OWN beliefs,
and just keep govt to where all people from all sides AGREE so it is EQUAL.

If anyone disagrees, that is removed.
And people are rewarded if consensus is formed on laws
so THOSE can be endorsed by govt and everyone respects the same contract.

Sorry if you don't see BOTH sides as equal beliefs.

Debra K that is the best way I find to be FAIR to both
prochoice and prolife, pro gun rights and pro gun control,
pro and anti death penalty, pro and anti marriage laws,
etc. is to treat all beliefs as equal under law and not
accept laws touching beliefs unless these are by consensus of the people affected.

Just because you think someone "shouldn't be affected" does not mean they aren't.

I have found that with people's Personal Beliefs,
NO means NO. If they agree, they will let me know.
so this way, any conflicts can be addressed and
consensus policy formed if we listen to each other's limits on yes and no.

People have a right to consent and dissent.
Just because we don't agree doesn't give us the right to
override the beliefs of others and not count them as equal to ours
which may not make sense to them either!

If we want people to take our yes to mean yes,
and no to mean no,
doesn't it just make sense to respect when they say yes and no?

If we don't want people talking down and dismissing our reasons for out
beliefs, doesn't it make sense not to dismiss others for their beliefs and reasons?

Isn't that part of Equal Protection of the laws, to defend for others
the same rights we want for ourselves? Thank you Debra K

I am not ignoring all that you posted about the laws;
I'm saying all that does NOT change the fact that
people have beliefs and don't consent to the laws passed through
the state without their consent on how those are written and implemented.

It is still violating beliefs if the conflicts aren't resolved in advance
so the laws are passed by AGREEMENT with all the people the state represents.

Your view is not the only one. You can say it isn't affecting others,
but if they disagree based on beliefs, they have the right to resolve
the conflicts and have laws they agree do not violate their beliefs.

I can't dictate that for them either, I can just respect when they say it does or does not respect and include their beliefs equally. And the same with the other side.

Emily. You ignored the point that I made. You didn't even read the link that I provided to you. I'm encouraging you to educate yourself or at least want to educate yourself. Unless you are willing to learn there is no point in responding to all the things in your long posts that contradict and conflict with the fundamental concepts and laws upon which this nation was founded and upon which it continues to evolve. You can choose "enlightenment" or "endarkenment". I hope you turn on the lights, but I'm not going to hold my breath in the meantime. It's just wasted effort to sludge through your long posts, to respond to your misconceptions, and to do so without any glimmer of hope of connecting with you. I wish you well though.

 

[Debra K]

Same-sex couples again denied marriage licenses in Rowan clerk asks judge to delay order Politics and Government Kentucky.com

Same-sex couples again were turned away from the Rowan County courthouse Thursday as County Clerk Kim Davis formally asked a judge to delay his order requiring her to resume issuing marriage licenses. The judge's decision is not expected until early next week, leaving the county of 23,655 people in legal limbo.

David Moore and David Ermold, of Rowan County, were refused a marriage license Thursday morning by Deputy County Clerk Nathan Davis, who is Kim Davis' son. Kim Davis was not in the office, Moore was told.

Read more here: Same-sex couples again denied marriage licenses in Rowan clerk asks judge to delay order Politics and Government Kentucky.com
​

And the violation of the people's civil rights by state agents Kim Davis and her son, Nathan Davis, continue....

 

[JakeStarkey]

Same-sex couples again denied marriage licenses in Rowan clerk asks judge to delay order Politics and Government Kentucky.com

Same-sex couples again were turned away from the Rowan County courthouse Thursday as County Clerk Kim Davis formally asked a judge to delay his order requiring her to resume issuing marriage licenses. The judge's decision is not expected until early next week, leaving the county of 23,655 people in legal limbo.

David Moore and David Ermold, of Rowan County, were refused a marriage license Thursday morning by Deputy County Clerk Nathan Davis, who is Kim Davis' son. Kim Davis was not in the office, Moore was told.

Read more here: Same-sex couples again denied marriage licenses in Rowan clerk asks judge to delay order Politics and Government Kentucky.com
​

And the violation of the people's civil rights by state agents Kim Davis and her son, Nathan Davis, continue....

Only until the marshals come calling.

 

[Preacher]

Ted Cruz backs county clerks denying marriage licenses to gay couples
MSNBC ^ | 06/28/15 12:50 AM | Adam Howard

Sen. Ted Cruz is ready to rain on the parade of Texas citizens celebrating the Supreme Court decision on Friday to legalize same-sex marriage throughout the country.
On Saturday, the 2016 Republican presidential candidate said he “absolutely” believes that his state’s country clerks should deny marriage licenses to same-sex couples if they have a religious objection, in an interview with The Texas Tribune.
“Ours is a country that was built by men and women fleeing religious oppression,” Cruz told the newspaper, “and you look at the foundation of this country—it was to seek out a new land where anyone of us could worship the Lord God Almighty with all of our hearts, minds and souls, without government getting in the way.”

Ted cruz is consistent in his beliefs. Not a flip flopper.
…

I thought he was supposed to understand the constitution?

He does which is EXACTLY why he said what he said.

 

[OKTexas]

Ted Cruz backs county clerks denying marriage licenses to gay couples
MSNBC ^ | 06/28/15 12:50 AM | Adam Howard

Sen. Ted Cruz is ready to rain on the parade of Texas citizens celebrating the Supreme Court decision on Friday to legalize same-sex marriage throughout the country.
On Saturday, the 2016 Republican presidential candidate said he “absolutely” believes that his state’s country clerks should deny marriage licenses to same-sex couples if they have a religious objection, in an interview with The Texas Tribune.
“Ours is a country that was built by men and women fleeing religious oppression,” Cruz told the newspaper, “and you look at the foundation of this country—it was to seek out a new land where anyone of us could worship the Lord God Almighty with all of our hearts, minds and souls, without government getting in the way.”

Ted cruz is consistent in his beliefs. Not a flip flopper.
…

I thought he was supposed to understand the constitution?

He does, there's no law in TX that says these county clerks must violate their religious beliefs. the faghadist can find a clerk that will just as easily as they can find another baker or photographer.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Odium, Cruz has it wrong, but even he would not approve of many of your beliefs.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Ted Cruz backs county clerks denying marriage licenses to gay couples
MSNBC ^ | 06/28/15 12:50 AM | Adam Howard

Sen. Ted Cruz is ready to rain on the parade of Texas citizens celebrating the Supreme Court decision on Friday to legalize same-sex marriage throughout the country.
On Saturday, the 2016 Republican presidential candidate said he “absolutely” believes that his state’s country clerks should deny marriage licenses to same-sex couples if they have a religious objection, in an interview with The Texas Tribune.
“Ours is a country that was built by men and women fleeing religious oppression,” Cruz told the newspaper, “and you look at the foundation of this country—it was to seek out a new land where anyone of us could worship the Lord God Almighty with all of our hearts, minds and souls, without government getting in the way.”

Ted cruz is consistent in his beliefs. Not a flip flopper.
…

I thought he was supposed to understand the constitution?

He does, there's no law in TX that says these county clerks must violate their religious beliefs. the faghadist can find a clerk that will just as easily as they can find another baker or photographer.

Every county clerk in Tx knows better than to throw in with Cruz on this one. They have all fallen into line.

 

[OKTexas]

Do so, there are plenty of lawyers seeking billable hours....

The real winners in this whole farce.

They get paid well when you ignore the laws of this land so, don't...

Try telling that to the ignorant leftist around here that wants the laws on marijuana ignored.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Do so, there are plenty of lawyers seeking billable hours....

The real winners in this whole farce.

They get paid well when you ignore the laws of this land so, don't...

Try telling that to the ignorant leftist around here that was the laws on marijuana ignored.

Fallacy of false analogy.

 

[OKTexas]

Do so, there are plenty of lawyers seeking billable hours....

The real winners in this whole farce.

They get paid well when you ignore the laws of this land so, don't...

Try telling that to the ignorant leftist around here that wants the laws on marijuana ignored.

Fallacy of false analogy.

Did you bother to actually read the post I was responding to, it was about ignoring laws, nothing more, nothing less. So explain how what I said was false in any way.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Because the analogy is false. One deals with civil rights, and one does not.

 

[emilynghiem]

Same-sex couples again denied marriage licenses in Rowan clerk asks judge to delay order Politics and Government Kentucky.com

Same-sex couples again were turned away from the Rowan County courthouse Thursday as County Clerk Kim Davis formally asked a judge to delay his order requiring her to resume issuing marriage licenses. The judge's decision is not expected until early next week, leaving the county of 23,655 people in legal limbo.

David Moore and David Ermold, of Rowan County, were refused a marriage license Thursday morning by Deputy County Clerk Nathan Davis, who is Kim Davis' son. Kim Davis was not in the office, Moore was told.

Read more here: Same-sex couples again denied marriage licenses in Rowan clerk asks judge to delay order Politics and Government Kentucky.com
​

And the violation of the people's civil rights by state agents Kim Davis and her son, Nathan Davis, continue....

Can't they ask to be transferred to jobs that don't require them to do anything against their beliefs?

If the gay couples can just go ask a different baker,
why can't these people just ask for different jobs?

I can't always serve on juries when there are criminal issues that invoke laws I don't believe in.
But that doesn't mean i can't serve on a jury for civil issues that don't have those conflicts!

 

[emilynghiem]

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.

Dear Debra K
Please do not insult me when you are the one failing to recognize
the political beliefs on both sides here equally.

There is just as much Wilful Ignorance in not accepting or respecting
the beliefs of others, but ASSUMING you understand these people's beliefs.

Apparently you do not, since you do not see how the laws are
affecting them. Just because you don't understand, or don't agree,
doesn't mean it doesn't COUNT.

I don't understand the full insult caused by killing a pig to insult a Muslim.
I don't see how that affects them as it does.
But my brother's college friends found out the hard way, after stringing up
a pig from lab as a "joke" on a Muslim friend who was so aggrieved he came
after them in ways that today would get him arrested and locked up for how
he reacted.

How does a dead pig affect that man's religious beliefs?
He wasn't forced to kill it. The pig was already dead before it got to lab.

For whatever reason Hindus treat cows as sacred,
conservatives worship their gun rights and right to life for the unborn,
liberals sanctify abortion rights or voting rights,
Why can't we respect when people say NO I don't CONSENT to that.

Are you saying that only the religious beliefs
we AGREE with or understand deserve to be protected by laws?

it's not like we can't find another solution that prevents imposition
because we CAN:
* in the case of transgender people using restrooms
UNISEX facilities bypass any argument or conflict over what
people BELIEVE about orientation and gender that isn't based on genetics
* in the case of marriage, this does not have to be conducted
through the public state. Parties already conduct all kinds of programs
and policies outside public govt and tax funding, where members
CHOOSE to participate and fund those platforms and programs.

So why can't marriage and social/health benefits be separated
by party?

There are already schools and church programs, national
and international businesses and nonprofits that manage
programs for their members by voluntary participation and donations.

People can set up their own coops and don't have to make
the same rules for larger than the population who AGREES to be under those terms.

If Marriage is as fundamental as free exercise of religion to each person,
then just like one's religion it can be practiced independently outside of govt.

It is just the political belief of modern Liberals to keep
establishing any rights through Govt, but that belief isn't shared
by half the population who believes that rights are inherent
in human nature by design and don't depend on govt.

The liberals are basically using govt to establish these
liberal political beliefs, and this isn't fair to citizens with conservative beliefs.

Why not let each person and party organize around their OWN beliefs,
and just keep govt to where all people from all sides AGREE so it is EQUAL.

If anyone disagrees, that is removed.
And people are rewarded if consensus is formed on laws
so THOSE can be endorsed by govt and everyone respects the same contract.

Sorry if you don't see BOTH sides as equal beliefs.

Debra K that is the best way I find to be FAIR to both
prochoice and prolife, pro gun rights and pro gun control,
pro and anti death penalty, pro and anti marriage laws,
etc. is to treat all beliefs as equal under law and not
accept laws touching beliefs unless these are by consensus of the people affected.

Just because you think someone "shouldn't be affected" does not mean they aren't.

I have found that with people's Personal Beliefs,
NO means NO. If they agree, they will let me know.
so this way, any conflicts can be addressed and
consensus policy formed if we listen to each other's limits on yes and no.

People have a right to consent and dissent.
Just because we don't agree doesn't give us the right to
override the beliefs of others and not count them as equal to ours
which may not make sense to them either!

If we want people to take our yes to mean yes,
and no to mean no,
doesn't it just make sense to respect when they say yes and no?

If we don't want people talking down and dismissing our reasons for out
beliefs, doesn't it make sense not to dismiss others for their beliefs and reasons?

Isn't that part of Equal Protection of the laws, to defend for others
the same rights we want for ourselves? Thank you Debra K

I am not ignoring all that you posted about the laws;
I'm saying all that does NOT change the fact that
people have beliefs and don't consent to the laws passed through
the state without their consent on how those are written and implemented.

It is still violating beliefs if the conflicts aren't resolved in advance
so the laws are passed by AGREEMENT with all the people the state represents.

Your view is not the only one. You can say it isn't affecting others,
but if they disagree based on beliefs, they have the right to resolve
the conflicts and have laws they agree do not violate their beliefs.

I can't dictate that for them either, I can just respect when they say it does or does not respect and include their beliefs equally. And the same with the other side.

Emily. You ignored the point that I made. You didn't even read the link that I provided to you. I'm encouraging you to educate yourself or at least want to educate yourself. Unless you are willing to learn there is no point in responding to all the things in your long posts that contradict and conflict with the fundamental concepts and laws upon which this nation was founded and upon which it continues to evolve. You can choose "enlightenment" or "endarkenment". I hope you turn on the lights, but I'm not going to hold my breath in the meantime. It's just wasted effort to sludge through your long posts, to respond to your misconceptions, and to do so without any glimmer of hope of connecting with you. I wish you well though.

Dear Debra K
I think we are talking past each other.
I had a long talk with Impenitent about the DIFFERENCE between laws that involve BELIEFS
which are different from laws that don't impose on people's beliefs.

BIG DIFFERENCE.

You can cite all the case law and precedence and rulings
and it doesn't change the fact that these are BELIEFS and people DON'T CONSENT.

Debra K must I remind you that the founding laws include
the FIRST AMENDMENT where the govt is NOT AUTHORIZED to establish a religious belief or bias.

THOSE ARE FUNDAMENTAL to the founding of this country, too!

So the policies must meet ALL these requirements, Debra.

You can't just say it followed this or that rule, but ALL of them.
And right now, half the nation is contesting both the ACA mandates
and now this gay marriage ruling as establishing beliefs and biases OUTSIDE THE AUTHORITY of GOVT.

I am just responding to you from the position of these people whose beliefs are NOT going to change
because of any of what you cited. You cannot require them to read, follow, or submit to anything by
govt that you are using to try to compel them to change their beliefs.

Govt is not authorized to make such laws at all for this reason.

Debra K you might as well take all the studies on spiritual healing that PROVE it has cured cancer,
and other diseases, and try to "force people to look at the scientific research"

But still, even with all the cases, people are NOT REQUIRED to change their minds about their BELIEFS.

Anything to do with BELIEFS is by free choice.

That is how human nature is designed. And human nature and Natural Laws
are what our Constitutional laws and system are based on.

Sorry you don't get this, Debra K, I am merely pointing out to you that
once these Christians have their beliefs, they are not required to change them by govt
to other FAITH BASED beliefs.

By the same Constitution you and I are both citing, your beliefs and the opposing beliefs
are equal under law; and govt cannot favor one set over the other without violating the
equal rights and protections of people of the opposing belief.

So anything you cite is more violation of this concept IN CASES WHERE BELIEFS
ARE AT STAKE. Debra K with ANY other type of case, you would be right; and govt WOULD BE AUTHORIZED to establish law -- BUT NOT WHERE BELIEFS ARE AT STAKE.

Not just "right to heath care" and "right to marriage" as beliefs,
but BELIEVING that marriage and health care have to "be established through govt"
is a political belief that not all people share! Obviously, that's why this is so hotly contested.

It's not just normal realm of law, govt and politics. These two issues hit on people's beliefs,
similar to abortion and the death penalty that will continue to be contested because of BELIEFS involved. These automatically cross over between church and state, and there is no way around it.

If you think you can keep citing laws to change someone's BELIEFS,
you don't understand human nature or the psychology of people's religion.

It is not something you can change by coercion.
Sorry you miss this COMPLETELY as to the reason Govt is not supposed to get involved in anything RELIGIOUS.

DUH! It's not going to work, Debra K, people have a natural right to their beliefs
and nothing Govt can legislate or establish is going to change their BELIEFS.

I'm sorry we keep talking past each other.
I will try to ask Dante or Derideo Te or someone else for help to explain
to you why people's beliefs are not going to change just because other people passed
laws or set precedence; as long as that is biased toward beliefs they don't share,
they are going to argue it is unconstitutional. Sorry but that's how beliefs are, and how people are.

That's why nothing I can say can explain or change your mind,
because these are your beliefs. Well, same with the other side.

That is why Govt should not try to dictate issues that involve these beliefs that people cannot change
except by free choice, not by force of law. That's not how beliefs work!!!