Ted Cruz backs county clerks denying marriage licenses to gay couples

[emilynghiem]

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

Dear JakeStarkey as long as you are dealing with people's beliefs and creeds,
then by Civil Rights laws we are not supposed to abuse govt to discriminate by creed.

Taking sides on either the health care issue (beliefs in rights through govt vs. beliefs in freedom through free market) or the marriage issue (whether to keep marriage in the state and open it up to all couples, or remove marriage from the state or AGREE on the language to avoid bias, so everyone can practice their own beliefs equally) is going to violate the equal civil rights of people of the other belief(s).

So if you are really for EQUAL civil rights, that means mediating conflicts to resolve issues of beliefs,
whether religious or secular, personal or political, so all people are equally represented without conflict.

 

[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
1. I am not trying to ignore anything. I am saying the argument about keeping marriage out of the state altogether bypasses the need to justify or explain or use any of that. I went back and tried to read the articles you linked, but they further enforced the testimony of the clerk that her beliefs are violated. So this did not help your argument anyway.

2. would it help to explain it this way
A. IF marriage is going to be implemented through the state
then YES I agree if you allow state marriages for heterosexual couples then this should be allowed for homosexual couples
HOWEVER
B. if people DON'T believe in marriage in all cases
then I would agree that REMOVING marriage from the state is
ANOTHER way to ensure equality. And let everyone have civil unions and contracts through the state,
and keep all personal/social/spiritual/religious relations and beliefs about marriage for the people to decide not the state.

So all the precedent or case law you want to cite
WOULD apply to the argument of why it is discriminatory to have some marriage beliefs
through the state and not others.

Debra K I already AGREE with that, so I don't need to read all the details if I already agree with you!

Where we disagree is I support the option of removing marriage altogether
to avoid the conflict in the first place, so NOBODY is being discriminated against.

The problem in this case is they didn't set that up first before the clerk renounced and refused
issuing any further licenses. It should have been transferred to other institutions to handle first,
such as through churches or parties to set up the systems by their own choice of beliefs.

Had this issue been handled by consensus, in order to respect all beliefs equally,
this would not have happened.

At the first sign of conflict, the beliefs on all sides should have been respected,
and policy reformed by consensus, and there would be no violations of rights or process.
Everyone could agree on changes if consensus were the standard instead of fighting back and forth
trying to force each side to do it a different way they are opposed to. Not the way I would handle beliefs!

 

[oreo]

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.
…

Well Ted--you cannot USE the government, in this case the county clerk's office to speak your religion for you.

This guy is soooo stupid--it's maddening.

I am a fiscal conservative--and I'll tell you that these Knuckle Dragging Neanderthals are killing the Republican Party.

He was down in Georgia last week pledging to more morons--support over a constitutional "personhood" bill. These people never look at the consequences of such action. Where a common mis-carriage would have to be investigated for foul play, under the law. Where an autopsy would have to be performed. Where a pregnant women fell down the stairs, and could be charged with manslaughter. Where if you get into an auto accident, and kill the baby of a pregnant mother you could be charged with involuntary manslaughter.

How do I know all this? Because it's been on Colorado's ballet 3 times, and has soundly been defeated 3 times.

To get a good laugh--here is Ted Cruz in a filibuster attempt--




I couldn't imagine what Democrats with do with this video if he became the nominee--LOL

 

[Locke11_21]

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.
…

Well Ted--you cannot USE the government, in this case the county clerk's office to speak your religion for you.

This guy is soooo stupid--it's maddening.

I am a fiscal conservative--and I'll tell you that these Knuckle Dragging Neanderthals are killing the Republican Party.

He was down in Georgia last week pledging to more morons--support over a constitutional "personhood" bill. These people never look at the consequences of such action. Where a common mis-carriage would have to be investigated for foul play, under the law. Where an autopsy would have to be performed. Where a pregnant women fell down the stairs, and could be charged with manslaughter. Where if you get into an auto accident, and kill the baby of a pregnant mother you could be charged with involuntary manslaughter.

How do I know all this? Because it's been on Colorado's ballet 3 times, and has soundly been defeated 3 times.

To get a good laugh--here is Ted Cruz in a filibuster attempt--




I couldn't imagine what Democrats with do with this video if he became the nominee--LOL

Ted Cruz is stupid? Wow, maybe you should let Alan Dershowitz in on your brilliant assessment.


Dershowitz Ted Cruz one of Harvard Law s smartest students The Daily Caller

 

[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

If it helps you to understand where I am coming from, and not to show you are ignorant by assuming I am,
I do not disagree that it violates the equal rights of people for the state to "only offer traditional marriage and not also gay marriage."

The difference is I also support the option of removing marriage altogether,
or changing the language to be so neutral that nobody feels either excluded or imposed upon.

All people can be equally expected to set up their own marriage terms and rites
through their own social programs and remove them from govt altogether if they can't agree.

That is still treating all people equally, including people like me who see both sides as equal
beliefs I don't want to be subjected to at the expense of the other; the legal and political battles
are costly also, and there are other issues to address and other solutions more cost-effective.

If you REALLY want to know, BOTH the progay marriage and the protraditional marriage
advocates impose on MY beliefs in treating the beliefs equally under law; if one side imposes
on the other, my beliefs in equality of creed are violated, and this keeps enforcing the fear
and skewed perception that consensus is not possible, also in violation of my beliefs that is necessary.

I understand that people think adding gay marriage does not diminish or change the traditional marriage.
But since people do not agree religiously, again, I do not discount or diminish their rights to their beliefs
any more than I would diminish your beliefs.

That is NOT the only issue here.

Another key problem is that people do not agree on treating homosexuality equally as heterosexuality.
Once that is an unproven belief, what is natural or unnatural, what is a choice or not a choice,
what is a behavior or what is an unchangeable trait, this is all FAITH based, and both sides are equally based on BELIEFS and deserve equal inclusion, representation and protection by a consensus policy satisfying them all.

Again Debra K if you were to ask me my belief on this,
I find that the spiritual healing process that can and has changed orientation and healed transgender issues,
is equally rejected by the LGBT side.

So it is hypocritical to push tolerance of diversity and nondiscrimination on one side,
but not demand the same standards of the other.

Another example of how this mutual discrimination can be resolved:
What if there is an agreement that gay couples must be universally accepted and this is MANDATORY by law,
then why can't the people who believe that homosexuality can be changed
EQUALLY require that all couples go through spiritual healing to resolve any unnatural relations.

If you are going to require conditions on one side,
why not require conditions of the other?

And if the LGBT community keeps arguing that either
spiritual healing to resolve gender/orientation issues must remain OPTIONAL and FREE CHOICE
then it can be equally argued that accepting couples relations as marriage should be OPTIONAL by FREE CHOICE and can't be forced by law either.

That's another example.

it's really a two way street.
there are also beliefs about healing the spiritual causes of homosexual attractions
that the LGBT community rejects and won't consider equally,
as the beliefs about some homosexual couples being naturally that way
that many of the opponents don't want to consider either.

Can you really force either side to look at the cases that prove their points?
This is all faith based, where people should retain free choice to change their minds
and not be forced by govt.

But if you are going to mandate acceptance of one,
why not be fair and mandate acceptance of the other?

Lastly Debra K I have NO problem separating the civil contract side of "marriage"
from the religious institutions and beliefs about it; what I am saying is the LANGUAGE
and terms must be agreed upon to truly keep it secular. If the word "marriage" already
conjures up associations with beliefs, that isn't going to work.

The first step in mediating out this conflict is to start with neutral and inclusion of both
conflicting beliefs; you can't go into mediation already assuming the other side's beliefs
are not violated and their beliefs otherwise are invalid.

If we are going to work out the language of the laws to resolve this,
the first step is to acknowledge that the beliefs involved are valid,
and that is why consensus is necessary. To make sure there is agreement
and consent in how the laws are set up, so any differences can be AVOIDED.

I am not trying to deny or ignore anything arguing for or against this point or that.

I am saying the need to explain views and beliefs can be bypassed altogether
by writing laws people agree to ANYWAY despite their differences in seeing the rest.

It's not that what you cited is being dismissed,
it's that it doesn't affect the fact that removing or changing the language and terms
would bypass the conflicting beliefs anyway, so there is no need for legal justification or arguments either way.

 

[emilynghiem]

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.
…

Well Ted--you cannot USE the government, in this case the county clerk's office to speak your religion for you.

This guy is soooo stupid--it's maddening.

I am a fiscal conservative--and I'll tell you that these Knuckle Dragging Neanderthals are killing the Republican Party.

He was down in Georgia last week pledging to more morons--support over a constitutional "personhood" bill. These people never look at the consequences of such action. Where a common mis-carriage would have to be investigated for foul play, under the law. Where an autopsy would have to be performed. Where a pregnant women fell down the stairs, and could be charged with manslaughter. Where if you get into an auto accident, and kill the baby of a pregnant mother you could be charged with involuntary manslaughter.

How do I know all this? Because it's been on Colorado's ballet 3 times, and has soundly been defeated 3 times.

To get a good laugh--here is Ted Cruz in a filibuster attempt--




I couldn't imagine what Democrats with do with this video if he became the nominee--LOL

Dear oreo

Well, I can't find a single person among my fellow Democrats
who can explain to me how the ACA mandates are prochoice
if they require all people to buy insurance or else pay fines.
How is that free choice.

I even found people like C_Clayton_Jones claiming no
liberties are lost, when the whole hue and cry over the mandates
is that federal govt is regulating the rules on penalties and exemptions
based on either religious affiliation or by requiting people to buy insurance
as the only option. So all other choices outside those dictates are financially PENALIZED.
And these people are claiming there is no loss to free choice?

if you compare Cruz with Obama's views
* First Obama comes out and declares ACA to be the law of the land,
establishing the BELIEF in the right to health care he stated as wanting to enforce.
How is that not abusing federal govt to establish a belief and require people
to comply or else face penalties? How is this NOT violating "separation of church and state"
to take one's personal political beliefs and force it on opponents who vocally objected
and expressed the beliefs that would be violated, only to be treated as an "inferior creed."

* Next Obama admits he changed his mind on gay marriage.
This was done by free choice, similar to how all the people I know who
are prolife or changed their minds and became that, did so by FREE CHOICE
and weren't compelled by law.

But after Obama and others exercised free choice in their beliefs about marriage,
now they want to DICTATE BY LAW that all states need to recognize this?
Where is the free choice for others?

I have not gotten a straight answer from any fellow Democrats
on these political beliefs being established through govt,
seemingly in contradiction to "free choice" and keeping govt out of
personal decisions, and violating "separation of church and state."

So oreo at this point I am not so concerned with "academic intelligence"
as even as "intelligent" as Obama is, there is no acknowledgement of
the discrimination by creed applied to political beliefs being established by govt while penalizing other beliefs.

If Harvard education and law school can't teach people what a political belief is,
or Constitutional ethics in not putting partisan beliefs and bias before
equal treatment and inclusion of people of all other beliefs equally,
then I don't see how this makes a difference to judge anyone by that.

I am more concerned with intellectual honesty, transparency,
and Constitutional INCLUSION of both sides, instead of arguing to exclude discredit or dismiss the other views.

The Libertarians may be more honest in arguing to remove marriage from the state altogether
which at least would be fair to all beliefs by treating them equally.

If Obama and Cruz can't see their own biases,
that's more a political conflict or ego issue. They are both intelligent,
so if they miss this point, it must be for the political power and pressures riding on it.

That's more about consistency.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Emily, your religious beliefs, according to SCOTUS and constitution, may not be used to violate others' beliefs in the public forum. Belief that ACA is bad is not a belief that rises to civil rights level. You abuse by creed when you try to make it such.

 

[The Rabbi]

DC has yet to issue any gun permits, despite Supreme Court instructions. I dont see the outrage anywhere.

 

[Seawytch]

emilynghiem - we already have a separation. If you want to marry in a church, you marry in a church. If you don't want to, you don't have to and you can get a wholly secular marriage.

People had religious objections to blacks marrying whites. This religious bullshit is the same bullshit, just a different decade. We didn't have your required 100% consensus.

 

[Debra K]

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.

Our country has a population of 321 million people and counting. With the exception of infants, perhaps, all the people in this nation harbor personal beliefs. Perhaps a large number of small children believe in the existence of the Tooth Fairy and Santa Claus. Perhaps a significant percentage of people believe in the existence of a "God". But there is a significant diversity of thoughts and beliefs about what "God" wants or expects from people.

There exist thousands of religions and many, many millions of people in this country who subscribe to some tenets of the various religions.

Despite our vast diversity in beliefs, we cannot allow millions of people in this country to act upon their beliefs to the detriment of others.

There must be laws that are generally applicable to everyone so that we may "live in peace" side by side and to encourage our society to thrive for the benefit of all of us. Thus, the concept of liberty in this county does not mean "liberty to do whatever you please based on your own beliefs or self interests". Our founders organized this nation under the concept of ORDERED LIBERTY. Without law and order, there is no liberty ... there is no domestic tranquility ... there is no promotion of the general welfare ... there is no justice ... there is only survival of the fittest.

The supreme law of the land is the United States Constitution: "We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

The First Amendment to the supreme law of the land protects everyone's right (LIBERTY) to believe whatever sane or insane thing they want to believe.

Thus, I really don't know what your point is about "BELIEFS".

The law doesn't touch "BELIEFS"; the law governs "ACTIONS" a/k/a "CONDUCT", (which sometimes might include "inaction" when a duty to act exists).

Example: An insane person might engage in conduct that constitutes a threat to himself and/or others. Our concepts of ORDERED LIBERTY allow state governments to enact laws to involuntarily commit insane persons to treatment facilities for their own welfare and the general welfare of everyone else in society. Although involuntary commitment infringes upon the insane person's liberty interests, the state has a legitimate interest in protecting the insane person and the general public from harm. Under those circumstances, an insane person's CONSENT to the commitment doesn't matter.

Can we agree with those basic concepts about "BELIEFS" and "CONSENT"?

. . . 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!

I agree. That's why I asked you to read the court opinion in the case concerning the Rowan County, Kentucky, County Clerk.

The First Amendment applies to CONGRESS (the federal government). It is applicable to state governments via the Fourteenth Amendment.

The County Clerk is an elected government official. The County Clerk is an AGENT of the STATE government of Kentucky. The STATE law requires persons seeking to exercise their ordered liberty interests in getting married to apply to the designated STATE AGENT (i.e., the County Clerk) for a marriage license. Under the Fourteenth Amendment, homosexual couples have the same right to marry that heterosexual couples have to marry. (That's called "equal protection under the law.) As a STATE AGENT, the elected government official in the Kentucky case refuses to comply with the law and issue marriage licenses to persons who qualify for marriage licenses under the law. The STATE AGENT has disobeyed her oath to uphold the Constitution and has instead instituted a government policy (based on her personal beliefs) that prohibits all qualified persons from applying for marriage licenses in her government office.

In other words, this government official is imposing her personal beliefs on everyone else in society (and, in particular, the residents of Rowan County). There would be no such thing as "law and order" or liberty or freedom of religion if every petty government official in the land had the right to impose their beliefs on all other people seeking government services. Thus, the County Clerk was sued in her official capacity under 42 U.S.C. section 1983 to force her to perform the government duty she was elected to perform (i.e., to issue marriage licenses to qualified applicants). The lawsuit addresses only her conduct ... it does not touch her beliefs. Here is an accurate report of the Court's ruling on the plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction:

U.S. District Judge David L. Bunning said in his ruling Wednesday that Davis has likely violated the U.S. Constitution's protection against the establishment of a religion by "openly adopting a policy that promotes her own religious convictions at the expenses of others."

"Davis remains free to practice her Apostolic Christian beliefs. She may continue to attend church twice a week, participate in Bible Study and minister to female inmates at the Rowan County Jail. She is even free to believe that marriage is a union between one man and one woman, as many Americans do," Bunning wrote. "However, her religious convictions cannot excuse her from performing the duties that she took an oath to perform as Rowan County Clerk."​

Source: Kentucky clerk s office refuses to issue gay marriage license despite court order Fox News

Can you now distinguish between the BELIEFS of government actors and the CONDUCT of government actors? Can you see that government actors are still entitled to believe what they want to believe, but they must nevertheless provide the government services that the law requires them to provide?

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.

Let's shift to the driver's license and vehicles registration state agency. As a hypothetical, let's say that the government official in charge of the agency believes it is a sin to waste the valuable resources of God's planet and refuses to register vehicles that in his religious opinion are gas guzzlers and sully God's planetary gift to mankind? Should his conduct in refusing to register "gas guzzling vehicles" prevail over your right to register a vehicle that qualifies for registration under the law?

Just think about it.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Emily,does not matter.

 

[emilynghiem]

Dear Debra K and also JakeStarkey
I think this issue is so key, If you don't mind I will bump Debra's reply
and start a new thread just on this issue alone.

RE: Can we agree with those basic concepts about "BELIEFS" and "CONSENT"?
My answer is YES, we need people like you to be able to spell it out,
and agree on what levels of consent or collective policy we can work with
on which issues, with which groups, for our country and govt to function and move forward.

I find there are enough people like you who, because of our differences, are prepared to deal with the fact we don't agree and need means of working with that.

It is one level that we don't agree on the issues per se.
It is another issue that we don't agree how each other perceives them,
and also don't agree on the role of govt in addressing them, how to use govt.
Which may vary on different issues and with different groups.

We absolutely DO need to know where we agree, and where we don't,
and find a way to DEAL with the places and process we KNOW we have a divide.

Absolutely Debra K!
It is even more essential that I continue to work with you and Jake because we can't communicate what each other is trying to establish. It's like running into two people who speak French and Spanish, and I know that if I am going to speak to other French and Spanish people, then we need each other to speak and translate because otherwise we can't hear or communicate what each other is trying to say.

It is even more critical that I work with you, since I can see there is a huge gap
we can't seem to communicate across. This is the same gap dividing others,
so if we can set up means of accommodating this gap we KNOW we have,
the system may help others who can't even write up policies because of this gap.

Thanks and I will start a new thread.
I'm not sure what it will lead to, but maybe writing out the points and position you are trying to protect and defend, and I write up the angle I understand the opposition is coming from, and we "map out" where everyone stands. And then try to write out a Request or Petition to leaders to acknowledge these differences and protect them all.

The solutions or legislation cannot defend just one group of people, but cross some line or limit and start interfering on imposing on where another group is coming from. We need solutions that don't disrupt or discriminate against any of these groups.

So the first step would be to establish trust that we are committed to a better solution.
Then once we calm the waters and remove the emotional stigma and fear from the equation, the reps who can spell out what is needed and what is a problem, can try to negotiate and work something out that includes all interests and doesn't create conflicts.

And then the step after that would be to take the proposed agreements
back to the other members of each group and make sure these meets their objectives and resolves their objections. And if we feel it is representative of the various groups and angles, then we can propose these findings to the officials in all levels of govt, as guidelines if they are going to address laws or reforms on the key issues of conflict.

So Debra K and JakeStarkey I will start a thread and ask your help to spell out the issues, both the content of the actual laws, and then the context around it that people are grappling with, and also spelling out the conflicting approaches to govt (where one group wants all things run through govt, another wants to remove it altogether, and some want to keep some parts in govt and some parts private, and just spell it out).

If we can't all agree on a state policy, then I would take the sections we iron out
and request to set up meetings with party and precinct chairs and look at separating the benefits and terms of marriage, taxes, health care, etc. by party for those who absolutely need to segregate themselves and cannot compromise collectively.

If people really want to stand for their beliefs, they should have an option through their parties to pay for the cost of separating out their own system if that's what it takes to protect and exercise their beliefs equally. I think we need to learn to do this anyway, because it would teach citizens and leaders the steps of govt and administration,
so they have an understanding of the cost of govt. People who want to expand govt can create jobs for citizens and leaders to take onthis work by party. People who want to reduce govt can see this as a shift away from centralized govt back toward local controls. Either way it will be a good educational and training process that we need
anyway.

Our country is growing in both diversity, organization of people by their political followings, and the social development and political maturity of people and communities who deserve credit for taking on this responsibility for govt, and need means of support and training.

Debra K whatever you can spell out is perfect for what each sector needs to participate equally, regardless what angle we are coming from.

If I can try to do what you are doing, but for the farther Right Constitutionalists, I hope I can help bring them more into the loop with the more centrist and moderate citizens willing to work together and not just object and shut down the process out of fear and frustration.

Thank you, Debra K I will try to read through the rest of your messages and reply here for the details that don't cross over but are for this thread only. But for the new thread, I would like to really focus on hashing out what would be needed to make this process work.

There are multiple levels to address, and using this gay marriage case (or health care conflict) as examples, it will help us spell out the points per issues, as well as differences over the process through govt, and the impact on the social meaning as another level.

Thank you so much. I really need to work with you because you can spell things out in different ways and we need BOTH. We need to show why we need a better system
and an agreement how to work with these different approaches to include them all.

This is GREAT, Thank you!

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.

Our country has a population of 321 million people and counting. With the exception of infants, perhaps, all the people in this nation harbor personal beliefs. Perhaps a large number of small children believe in the existence of the Tooth Fairy and Santa Claus. Perhaps a significant percentage of people believe in the existence of a "God". But there is a significant diversity of thoughts and beliefs about what "God" wants or expects from people.

There exist thousands of religions and many, many millions of people in this country who subscribe to some tenets of the various religions.

Despite our vast diversity in beliefs, we cannot allow millions of people in this country to act upon their beliefs to the detriment of others.

There must be laws that are generally applicable to everyone so that we may "live in peace" side by side and to encourage our society to thrive for the benefit of all of us. Thus, the concept of liberty in this county does not mean "liberty to do whatever you please based on your own beliefs or self interests". Our founders organized this nation under the concept of ORDERED LIBERTY. Without law and order, there is no liberty ... there is no domestic tranquility ... there is no promotion of the general welfare ... there is no justice ... there is only survival of the fittest.

The supreme law of the land is the United States Constitution: "We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

The First Amendment to the supreme law of the land protects everyone's right (LIBERTY) to believe whatever sane or insane thing they want to believe.

Thus, I really don't know what your point is about "BELIEFS".

The law doesn't touch "BELIEFS"; the law governs "ACTIONS" a/k/a "CONDUCT", (which sometimes might include "inaction" when a duty to act exists).

Example: An insane person might engage in conduct that constitutes a threat to himself and/or others. Our concepts of ORDERED LIBERTY allow state governments to enact laws to involuntarily commit insane persons to treatment facilities for their own welfare and the general welfare of everyone else in society. Although involuntary commitment infringes upon the insane person's liberty interests, the state has a legitimate interest in protecting the insane person and the general public from harm. Under those circumstances, an insane person's CONSENT to the commitment doesn't matter.

Can we agree with those basic concepts about "BELIEFS" and "CONSENT"?

. . . 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!

I agree. That's why I asked you to read the court opinion in the case concerning the Rowan County, Kentucky, County Clerk.

The First Amendment applies to CONGRESS (the federal government). It is applicable to state governments via the Fourteenth Amendment.

The County Clerk is an elected government official. The County Clerk is an AGENT of the STATE government of Kentucky. The STATE law requires persons seeking to exercise their ordered liberty interests in getting married to apply to the designated STATE AGENT (i.e., the County Clerk) for a marriage license. Under the Fourteenth Amendment, homosexual couples have the same right to marry that heterosexual couples have to marry. (That's called "equal protection under the law.) As a STATE AGENT, the elected government official in the Kentucky case refuses to comply with the law and issue marriage licenses to persons who qualify for marriage licenses under the law. The STATE AGENT has disobeyed her oath to uphold the Constitution and has instead instituted a government policy (based on her personal beliefs) that prohibits all qualified persons from applying for marriage licenses in her government office.

In other words, this government official is imposing her personal beliefs on everyone else in society (and, in particular, the residents of Rowan County). There would be no such thing as "law and order" or liberty or freedom of religion if every petty government official in the land had the right to impose their beliefs on all other people seeking government services. Thus, the County Clerk was sued in her official capacity under 42 U.S.C. section 1983 to force her to perform the government duty she was elected to perform (i.e., to issue marriage licenses to qualified applicants). The lawsuit addresses only her conduct ... it does not touch her beliefs. Here is an accurate report of the Court's ruling on the plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction:

U.S. District Judge David L. Bunning said in his ruling Wednesday that Davis has likely violated the U.S. Constitution's protection against the establishment of a religion by "openly adopting a policy that promotes her own religious convictions at the expenses of others."

"Davis remains free to practice her Apostolic Christian beliefs. She may continue to attend church twice a week, participate in Bible Study and minister to female inmates at the Rowan County Jail. She is even free to believe that marriage is a union between one man and one woman, as many Americans do," Bunning wrote. "However, her religious convictions cannot excuse her from performing the duties that she took an oath to perform as Rowan County Clerk."​

Source: Kentucky clerk s office refuses to issue gay marriage license despite court order Fox News

Can you now distinguish between the BELIEFS of government actors and the CONDUCT of government actors? Can you see that government actors are still entitled to believe what they want to believe, but they must nevertheless provide the government services that the law requires them to provide?

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.

Let's shift to the driver's license and vehicles registration state agency. As a hypothetical, let's say that the government official in charge of the agency believes it is a sin to waste the valuable resources of God's planet and refuses to register vehicles that in his religious opinion are gas guzzlers and sully God's planetary gift to mankind? Should his conduct in refusing to register "gas guzzling vehicles" prevail over your right to register a vehicle that qualifies for registration under the law?

Just think about it.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Emily all of this has been answered sufficiently and competently.

No, I won't do "just once more" with you. You do not accept constitutional, republican government. I get that.

 

[emilynghiem]

Let's shift to the driver's license and vehicles registration state agency. As a hypothetical, let's say that the government official in charge of the agency believes it is a sin to waste the valuable resources of God's planet and refuses to register vehicles that in his religious opinion are gas guzzlers and sully God's planetary gift to mankind? Should his conduct in refusing to register "gas guzzling vehicles" prevail over your right to register a vehicle that qualifies for registration under the law?

Just think about it.

Dear Debra K
1. for each issue, we can hash out what is better handled on a state level, local or federal.

It won't be just one person dictating what they think, but the conflicts have to be resolved where everyone feels it is most effective and handles the administration best.

2. There are different roles, some people only object or approve in absolutes, and don't mess with the conflict resolution process to get to an agreement.

So the conflict resolution and consensus process need to address these types and let them serve in the role that suits their leadership style.

I've seen this spelled out as 4-5 different approaches to conflict:
* accommodating (putting collective before individual, putting relationship before goal)
* collaborative (we/collective balancing both the goals and the relationships)
* competitive (putting individual before collective, putting goal before relationship)
* avoidance (not actively participating in resolving the relationship or reaching the goal)

3. My personal opinion is that
A. screening people for problems that would muck up the state and federal systems
can be handled locally, we need to define an option for Community based law where people can police addictive, abusive, or mental/criminal illness before it becomes a civil or criminal issue, and that might help reduce the burden on the state/federal levels.

B. Once we have a system for reducing the backlog on the state, it will be more clear what things the states can handle (or the parties if people of a state cannot agree on social programs and ask to organize by party to accommodate all beliefs and train more citizens to manage their own administrative systems, which can be an advantage in training future leaders BEFORE running for regular office on the state/federal level)
and what belongs on the federal level.

By clearing out the channels, then there won't be such a backlog of conflicts unresolved on the state level, that people run and petition on the federal level for Constitutional relief.

Why not solve more SOCIAL problems on the local/state levels and not jam up
our state and federal administrations with things that can be solved or prevented.

for example, if we set up enough schooling/medical programs on a local level to handle mental illness and end homelessness per district and state, then this doesn't become a burden for federal govt to handle when states are overwhelmed.

Then if the prison system isn't bogged down with excess costs from warehousing populations without proper treatment and prevention, the resources saved per state can fund sustainable health care through medical education, internships and public clinics and teaching hospitals, and that keeps more of the burden off federal govt.

The more we can reward local citizens and states (and/or parties) for taking on their own social programs and develop their own solutions -- where they get tax breaks for investing similar to large corporations but working for social causes and stability --
then the federal govt can focus on interstate issues and foreign relations/security.

I think each specific issue that could be improved, such as the VA if we are going to revamp health care in general, will become more clear as we organize the general scheme. Some states like TX and CA may be more advanced politically and able to localize the mental health or prison reform as a model to study and develop, before proposing to other states that might still depend on federal govt for their programs.

Because of the political environment in TX, I am guessing the parties here would be more open to the idea of trying to separate the programs, starting with the prisons and applying that to health care reform, make that work and then propose it nationally.

When you bring up the issue of what if one person demands X Y Z, there are ways to accommodate that leadership style, such as letting them be in charge of rubberstamping the final proposals, or each stage of reporting the status and what is working or not. We can use the pilot reforms to train govt leaders who want experience in managing the big picture, and overseeing the different levels of reform from the budgetary issues to the coordination between federal and state, county and city levels.

There would be room for all leadership types and party approaches to govt to participate SOMEWHERE in the chain, and apply their best ideas where these actually solve a problem the other approaches aren't appropriate for.

So once people or parties find their place, there is less need to trumpet and try to dominate or play pecking order games "to establish authority or territory".

We would already acknowledge respect for what each person or party has to offer, without having to defend their ground or go on the offensive, so the need to exploit conflicts to show dominance should diminish in the process. If people have a domineering personality or leadership style, there is a place for that.

 

[emilynghiem]

Emily all of this has been answered sufficiently and competently.

No, I won't do "just once more" with you. You do not accept constitutional, republican government. I get that.

That is YOUR perception. Yes I do. I am trying to set up means alongside govt just like the parties already work alongside govt. The point is to resolve the conflicts that otherwise interfere with Constitutional govt.

Since we can't seem to communicate our perceptions, this is why I do want to work with you so the two worlds are both represented, wherever you are coming from that you can't see where I am trying to include all people and approaches without disruption / divisive conflict.

For some reason you keep thinking my approach is AGAINST what you are saying,
when I am saying to have these other systems UNDERNEATH or ALONGSIDE Constitutional republican govt. I am saying we can have them all, and they will all work better by setting up means between the parties to resolve conflicts so there isn't bullying and exclusion going on.

People are left out of the process because of the party domination, so I am proposing
how to use parties for inclusion and direct participation, and then work WITH the existing structures to pass and reform govt in more effective ways where the conflicts are addressed and resolved in advance. JakeStarkey the existing govt still works as is but BETTER because people resolve their issues and work out conflicts BEFORE putting laws to a vote.

JakeStarkey do you understand the party system is already outside govt and is already functioning as a part of our society. Well I'm just saying to set up means between these parties to spell out their issues in advance of legislation and reform.

The parties currently are sabotaging each other's candidates and interests
and wasting money. That is ALREADY OUTSIDE Constitutional republican govt
since there is nothing about parties and what they are doing in the Constitution.

I'm trying to reform how the PARTIES interact instead of defeating each other's purposes.

JakeStarkey are you saying that the parties are against Constitutional republican govt. So if I am working with parties, that is against Constitutional republican govt.

Are you saying this system of mediating and including reps from all parties
won't work? And how is that going to work any less than what parties are doing now?

Can you please explain your statement in terms of what political parties are currently doing or not doing? thanks!

And JakeStarkey as long as you and I are both US citizens, I will continue working with you because I am certainly not in the business of working against anyone.

My goal is equal Constitutional inclusion and representation so the goals of all Americans are reached. Some call this Constitutional equal protection of laws,
or Equal Justice Under Law. Some point to Promoting General Welfare as the goal of Govt. We the people can do all these things, using all our different ways.

And ALL of it is protected under Free Exercise of Religion UNDER
the US Constitution which is UNDER the Constitutional Republican Govt.

So I don't understand why you keep assuming this is against that
when the whole point is to FULFILL it.

Thanks and I wish you could explain why you keep saying the opposite
of what I am trying to organize under Constitutional govt,
where there is no conflict that can't be resolved.

Thanks

 

[JakeStarkey]

No, in fact, you don't, so no you don't get "just once more" Emily

 

[Seawytch]

Emily doesn't understand that the issue was resolved....

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf

 

[emilynghiem]

Emily doesn't understand that the issue was resolved....

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf

Dear Seawytch As long as people don't consent to the law, something isn't resolved.
Your attitude is the same that justifies bullying, oppression and rape.
As long as YOU agree, that's good enough, but you don't consider
the equal rights of the persons whose beliefs and consent are violated.

How can you argue for "human equality" but completely discount why people
are saying no. Do these people not count as people in your book.
So you don't care if they say no or not, your way is mandated for them and
overrules their reasons for needing a better solution?

Who made you God where you can decide which citizens have rights or not?

I don't understand why you can think this is finished
when half the nation is demanding a better solution.

Why does your opinion and lack of interest in a better solution
count more than half the nation who contests the constitutionality
and is asking for redress of grievances.

You can disagree all you want, and think this is resolved.

I can just tell you when it comes to people's beliefs,
they are not going to settle for anything less than satisfactory resolution.

So something has to change, it may not change for you,
but something has to change on their side or they wouldn't be complaining
if there wasn't something wrong.

People don't just complain for no reason.

Sorry you don't care for half the nation,
but it is against my beliefs to exclude anyone,
I believe has equal rights to redress all grievances.

I'm sorry your definition of human equality doesn't include
the issues of half the nation. How can you leave those objectors
out and claim to be for humanity equality?

Inclusion to me means 100% not 50%. Sorry you don't care about this
but I do because I made the commitment to enforce and fulfill
the true meaning of the Constitutional laws and natural laws these represent.

Obviously, your commitment stops at your rights
and you don't respect the same protection of the rights of others.

When you object and others dismiss you, I would
defend your right to a better solution than what they think is a done deal.

Sorry you don't value the interests and issues of other people
equally as your own. I guess that's not your job to include everyone equally
but that's the commitment I made which I believe is legally necessary
to have a consistent Constitutional standard and ethic..

Otherwise, we don't have Equal Justice Under Law
if we pick and choose which people's opinions to count.

Sorry but I believe people have equal rights and deserve
equal representation and inclusion in a real consensus,
not one coerced by compromise and political convenience.

I don't enjoy being censored, so I am not going to censor others.
Sorry you don't count everyone when you consider what is a
lawful binding contract, but I consider consent of the governed
to be the deciding factor.

Thanks, Seawytch
I appreciate your honesty in expressing your limits.
I guess we will need separate roles so people like you
who don't practice full Constitutional inclusion don't
mess up the process and exclude citizens who commited
no crimes and don't deserve to lose their equal rights to participate
in democratic process as you are suggesting is over. I disagree.

If it were finished we would agree the solution represents everyone.
If not, then we aren't done yet and people are still seeking
to redress grievances and resolve objections.

If you ask me the process is just begun.
We have a long road ahead if people like you
and Jake have no concept or interest in what
it really takes to reach a true and lasting consensus.

Maybe you need to see proof first before you believe
there is anything to gain by redressing grievances further.

Yours truly,
Emily

 

[emilynghiem]

No, in fact, you don't, so no you don't get "just once more" Emily

Ok JakeStarkey I challenge you to the Bullring to
prove your false supposition that I am working against
Constitutional Republican Govt.

I can explain my point, purpose and process that works with the
given system and seeks to correct the problems caused by
media bias, corporate influence, and party politics and religious agenda
that is mucking up the Constitutional system and skewing representation
and ability to redress grievances and create democratically decided policies.

I seek to resolve whatever is making you think
what I propose is against or diminishes the Constitutional system.

So come meet me in the Bullring
and you can post the reasons you think I am against
or refusing to work with the Constitutional republican govt system.

My ways includes that plus works out conflicts so all people
can work with the system. I don't understand why you keep
saying this is against anything. Can you please explain
on the thread I will start in the Bullring. Thanks JakeStarkey
obviously I value your opinions and want to understand them
in order to improve and perfect this process. I am sorry I
have failed to communicate with you and seek to fix that!

 

[JakeStarkey]

Emily, I don't care. You have been proven wrong over and over. Your personal opinion on certain things are not constitutionally protected minority rights. You have no legislation and no case law to prove your assertions.

You live in a constitutional republic: it is what it is.