What Obama (and now this former Senator) are missing about Same Sex Marriage

[emilynghiem]

Ex-Pa. Senator Harris Wofford, 90, announces same-sex marriage in op-ed

I'm all for people CHOOSING to embrace same sex marriage and understanding homosexual people and relations.

What strikes me is that while both Obama and now this Senator chose FREELY to embrace same sex marriage, neither of them seems to understand the difference between that and the Federal Govt "deciding for people" what the rules or traditions of marriage should be.

Would we let Courts decide if the Catholics are right, and only Catholics should participate in communion?
Or the communion rites of Lutherans or others should be endorsed that are open to any who wish to partake?

I understand that once SOCIAL BENEFITS through govt became attached to marriage, then it became a matter of discrimination endorsed by govt.

But nobody ever presented the option to SEPARATE these benefits from govt in order to remove that problem.

Again if Baptisms were tied to whether babies received official state birth certificates or not,
and if people disagreed over the rules of Baptism,
wouldn't the solution clearly be to DETACH the Baptism ritual from the birth certificate process
so that people were free to practice their own beliefs about Baptism without imposing this on the public?

As for TOLERANCE I would compare embracing homosexuality and same sex marriage
with embracing Christianity and group prayer.

It seems hypocritical personally (and when govt is involved it becomes DISCRIMINATORY)
to harass people for rejecting same sex marriage, and trying to coerce them to change their beliefs by law;
but then argue the opposite when it comes to accepting Christian practices and beliefs as part of diversity.

I would answer to President Obama and other officials:
1. Since you had the free choice to decide or even change your mind about homosexuality and same sex marriage, why not respect the same freedom of others?
If you weren't forced by law to recognize it, why would you then insist the govt should force people this way?

2. If you want to encourage tolerance for beliefs that are contrary or even violations,
where is your tolerance when it comes to opposing beliefs?
Not just about marriage, but what about free market health care,
and states rights vs. federal duties specified in the Constitution?

If by Constitutional freedom, people have the right to CHOOSE whether to view abortion as illegal murder
(or as something that women shouldn't be criminalized for by laws that focus on them more than men for responsibility for prevention), and this "right to CHOOSE" trumps the BELIEF that the LIFE of the unborn child should be EQUAL to the life of the mother and other persons already born,
then why isn't gay marriage left as a CHOICE to believe in, similar to other religious rites and rituals,
where the "right to CHOOSE" trumps the BELIEF that all couples should be recognized equally regardless of gender.

Since these positions are all FAITHBASED it seems only fair that if one FAITH BASED belief can't be imposed by govt, then neither should the others.

If the only way to prevent from pushing a biased belief about marriage is to remove it from govt,
and keep neutral civil contracts with the state that don't mention ANY personal relationship between
the partners to a domestic, custody, benefits or estate contract, then at least that would be
CONSISTENT and NON DISCRIMINATORY.

If people cannot change their beliefs, and these are as personal to them as religious beliefs,
these should be separated by church, party, organization or other private affiliation.

If people cannot agree on social benefits because of BELIEFS, why not separate those from govt, similar to separating Hindu and Muslim beliefs, Catholics and Protestant etc. so people can practice what they believe as a group without imposing on other groups.

Because of the conflicts in beliefs over both same sex benefits AND health care by mandate or by free market choice (as well as conflicts over abortion, birth control, and also drug legalization),
isn't it worth it at this point to look at SEPARATING policies by party so that people
can pay for the benefits and the liabilities they believe in, and not impose these on taxpayers
who DON'T agree to pay for that.

How long before it becomes easier to separate programs and funding by party instead of continuing to fight
to impose one biased belief on the public, divided in half where one party agrees and the other objects?

 

[Syriusly]

Ex-Pa. Senator Harris Wofford, 90, announces same-sex marriage in op-ed

I'm all for people CHOOSING to embrace same sex marriage and understanding homosexual people and relations.

What strikes me is that while both Obama and now this Senator chose FREELY to embrace same sex marriage, neither of them seems to understand the difference between that and the Federal Govt "deciding for people" what the rules or traditions of marriage should be. ?

I agree-the Federal Government should not be deciding for the people what the rules of marriage should be.

Which is why I was glad(and I am sure you were to) when the Supreme Court told the Federal government exactly that- when it overturned as unconstitutional DOMA

The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) (Pub.L. 104–199, 110 Stat. 2419, enacted September 21, 1996, 1 U.S.C. § 7 and 28 U.S.C. § 1738C) is a United States federal law that, prior to being ruled unconstitutional, defined marriage for federal purposes as the union of one man and one woman, and allowed states to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages granted under the laws of other states

The people are free to define marriage as we wish- so long as how we do so does not violate the Constitution. The Supreme Court has overturned State marriage laws 4 times now on the grounds that they were unconstitutional- starting with Loving- and ending with Obergefell.

Because of the Supreme Court decisions- mixed race couples and gay couples can get married in all 50 states.

And I think that is a good thing.

 

[emilynghiem]

Ex-Pa. Senator Harris Wofford, 90, announces same-sex marriage in op-ed

I'm all for people CHOOSING to embrace same sex marriage and understanding homosexual people and relations.

What strikes me is that while both Obama and now this Senator chose FREELY to embrace same sex marriage, neither of them seems to understand the difference between that and the Federal Govt "deciding for people" what the rules or traditions of marriage should be. ?

I agree-the Federal Government should not be deciding for the people what the rules of marriage should be.

Which is why I was glad(and I am sure you were to) when the Supreme Court told the Federal government exactly that- when it overturned as unconstitutional DOMA

The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) (Pub.L. 104–199, 110 Stat. 2419, enacted September 21, 1996, 1 U.S.C. § 7 and 28 U.S.C. § 1738C) is a United States federal law that, prior to being ruled unconstitutional, defined marriage for federal purposes as the union of one man and one woman, and allowed states to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages granted under the laws of other states

The people are free to define marriage as we wish- so long as how we do so does not violate the Constitution. The Supreme Court has overturned State marriage laws 4 times now on the grounds that they were unconstitutional- starting with Loving- and ending with Obergefell.

Because of the Supreme Court decisions- mixed race couples and gay couples can get married in all 50 states.

And I think that is a good thing.

Dear Syriusly For the same reason that DOMA was unconstitutional,
I am finding that establishing same sex marriage through the state by federal decision instead of consent of the people is unconstitutional.

Of course, if the people agreed, either by consensus or agreed by vote or other means,
then if that decision came from the people, then it would be constitutional.

Especially when it comes through Federal court, which is under Constitutional limits by the First Amendment,
in cases like this where BELIEFS are involved on both sides,
then it is technically ask govt to make a judgment call for the people,
which is like the Pope deciding how to interpret law and the Bible, and decide
if the church should recognize gay marraige or not.

I argue the correct way to settle such a conflict in BELIEFS is to resolve the disputes
so that the parties AGREE the outcome decision respects and includes their beliefs equally.

Here, in both DOMA, the State votes on amendments banning certain marriage, and now this
ruling, one side or the other DOES NOT AGREE and argues their beliefs are excluded or violated.

So that tells me the conflict is not resolved and the policy as written is still biased against the opposing side still objecting!

This is in cases of conflicts of BELIEF, that technically by the Constitution, both sides' BELIEFS should not be
forced to change by govt.

With secular issues, people tend to agree to leave it to majority rule and legisilative/judicial process.

But Syriusly if you will notice, that with issues of beliefs that affect the marriage and now the
bathroom/discrimination issues,
people on BOTH sides DO NOT AGREE TO COMPROMISE THEIR BELIEFS
for majority rule or govt ruling.

So these should be managed differently where beliefs are involved that people defend
on a personal level different from other secular issues that govt is supposed to have jurisdiction over.

This is why we aren't supposed to subject govt to beliefs and beliefs to govt.

Why can't we recognize this is what is going on and work with it in more effective ways?

It seems obvious to me!

 

[NYcarbineer]

Ex-Pa. Senator Harris Wofford, 90, announces same-sex marriage in op-ed

I'm all for people CHOOSING to embrace same sex marriage and understanding homosexual people and relations.

What strikes me is that while both Obama and now this Senator chose FREELY to embrace same sex marriage, neither of them seems to understand the difference between that and the Federal Govt "deciding for people" what the rules or traditions of marriage should be.

Would we let Courts decide if the Catholics are right, and only Catholics should participate in communion?
Or the communion rites of Lutherans or others should be endorsed that are open to any who wish to partake?

I understand that once SOCIAL BENEFITS through govt became attached to marriage, then it became a matter of discrimination endorsed by govt.

But nobody ever presented the option to SEPARATE these benefits from govt in order to remove that problem.

Again if Baptisms were tied to whether babies received official state birth certificates or not,
and if people disagreed over the rules of Baptism,
wouldn't the solution clearly be to DETACH the Baptism ritual from the birth certificate process
so that people were free to practice their own beliefs about Baptism without imposing this on the public?

As for TOLERANCE I would compare embracing homosexuality and same sex marriage
with embracing Christianity and group prayer.

It seems hypocritical personally (and when govt is involved it becomes DISCRIMINATORY)
to harass people for rejecting same sex marriage, and trying to coerce them to change their beliefs by law;
but then argue the opposite when it comes to accepting Christian practices and beliefs as part of diversity.

I would answer to President Obama and other officials:
1. Since you had the free choice to decide or even change your mind about homosexuality and same sex marriage, why not respect the same freedom of others?
If you weren't forced by law to recognize it, why would you then insist the govt should force people this way?

2. If you want to encourage tolerance for beliefs that are contrary or even violations,
where is your tolerance when it comes to opposing beliefs?
Not just about marriage, but what about free market health care,
and states rights vs. federal duties specified in the Constitution?

If by Constitutional freedom, people have the right to CHOOSE whether to view abortion as illegal murder
(or as something that women shouldn't be criminalized for by laws that focus on them more than men for responsibility for prevention), and this "right to CHOOSE" trumps the BELIEF that the LIFE of the unborn child should be EQUAL to the life of the mother and other persons already born,
then why isn't gay marriage left as a CHOICE to believe in, similar to other religious rites and rituals,
where the "right to CHOOSE" trumps the BELIEF that all couples should be recognized equally regardless of gender.

Since these positions are all FAITHBASED it seems only fair that if one FAITH BASED belief can't be imposed by govt, then neither should the others.

If the only way to prevent from pushing a biased belief about marriage is to remove it from govt,
and keep neutral civil contracts with the state that don't mention ANY personal relationship between
the partners to a domestic, custody, benefits or estate contract, then at least that would be
CONSISTENT and NON DISCRIMINATORY.

If people cannot change their beliefs, and these are as personal to them as religious beliefs,
these should be separated by church, party, organization or other private affiliation.

If people cannot agree on social benefits because of BELIEFS, why not separate those from govt, similar to separating Hindu and Muslim beliefs, Catholics and Protestant etc. so people can practice what they believe as a group without imposing on other groups.

Because of the conflicts in beliefs over both same sex benefits AND health care by mandate or by free market choice (as well as conflicts over abortion, birth control, and also drug legalization),
isn't it worth it at this point to look at SEPARATING policies by party so that people
can pay for the benefits and the liabilities they believe in, and not impose these on taxpayers
who DON'T agree to pay for that.

How long before it becomes easier to separate programs and funding by party instead of continuing to fight
to impose one biased belief on the public, divided in half where one party agrees and the other objects?

You obviously have no clue as to what civil marriage constitutes.

 

[bendog]

Ex-Pa. Senator Harris Wofford, 90, announces same-sex marriage in op-ed

I'm all for people CHOOSING to embrace same sex marriage and understanding homosexual people and relations.

What strikes me is that while both Obama and now this Senator chose FREELY to embrace same sex marriage, neither of them seems to understand the difference between that and the Federal Govt "deciding for people" what the rules or traditions of marriage should be.

Would we let Courts decide if the Catholics are right, and only Catholics should participate in communion?
Or the communion rites of Lutherans or others should be endorsed that are open to any who wish to partake?

I understand that once SOCIAL BENEFITS through govt became attached to marriage, then it became a matter of discrimination endorsed by govt.

But nobody ever presented the option to SEPARATE these benefits from govt in order to remove that problem.

Again if Baptisms were tied to whether babies received official state birth certificates or not,
and if people disagreed over the rules of Baptism,
wouldn't the solution clearly be to DETACH the Baptism ritual from the birth certificate process
so that people were free to practice their own beliefs about Baptism without imposing this on the public?

As for TOLERANCE I would compare embracing homosexuality and same sex marriage
with embracing Christianity and group prayer.

It seems hypocritical personally (and when govt is involved it becomes DISCRIMINATORY)
to harass people for rejecting same sex marriage, and trying to coerce them to change their beliefs by law;
but then argue the opposite when it comes to accepting Christian practices and beliefs as part of diversity.

I would answer to President Obama and other officials:
1. Since you had the free choice to decide or even change your mind about homosexuality and same sex marriage, why not respect the same freedom of others?
If you weren't forced by law to recognize it, why would you then insist the govt should force people this way?

2. If you want to encourage tolerance for beliefs that are contrary or even violations,
where is your tolerance when it comes to opposing beliefs?
Not just about marriage, but what about free market health care,
and states rights vs. federal duties specified in the Constitution?

If by Constitutional freedom, people have the right to CHOOSE whether to view abortion as illegal murder
(or as something that women shouldn't be criminalized for by laws that focus on them more than men for responsibility for prevention), and this "right to CHOOSE" trumps the BELIEF that the LIFE of the unborn child should be EQUAL to the life of the mother and other persons already born,
then why isn't gay marriage left as a CHOICE to believe in, similar to other religious rites and rituals,
where the "right to CHOOSE" trumps the BELIEF that all couples should be recognized equally regardless of gender.

Since these positions are all FAITHBASED it seems only fair that if one FAITH BASED belief can't be imposed by govt, then neither should the others.

If the only way to prevent from pushing a biased belief about marriage is to remove it from govt,
and keep neutral civil contracts with the state that don't mention ANY personal relationship between
the partners to a domestic, custody, benefits or estate contract, then at least that would be
CONSISTENT and NON DISCRIMINATORY.

If people cannot change their beliefs, and these are as personal to them as religious beliefs,
these should be separated by church, party, organization or other private affiliation.

If people cannot agree on social benefits because of BELIEFS, why not separate those from govt, similar to separating Hindu and Muslim beliefs, Catholics and Protestant etc. so people can practice what they believe as a group without imposing on other groups.

Because of the conflicts in beliefs over both same sex benefits AND health care by mandate or by free market choice (as well as conflicts over abortion, birth control, and also drug legalization),
isn't it worth it at this point to look at SEPARATING policies by party so that people
can pay for the benefits and the liabilities they believe in, and not impose these on taxpayers
who DON'T agree to pay for that.

How long before it becomes easier to separate programs and funding by party instead of continuing to fight
to impose one biased belief on the public, divided in half where one party agrees and the other objects?

It's partly cultural and partly confused because of the US's rather confused delineation of powers between the states and fed, but then again limits on state powers that the federal courts can place if they find state legislature's violate rights of individuals.

But, much of the problem could have been avoided if all 50 states (and territories) had changed their laws whereby people now have to take their paperwork to a civil court clerk, and get a license permitting a Cleric of some sort to "marry them," and changed the law to instead of getting a license, you got your marriage certificate, entitling you to all rights (and legal disabilities) of being married. And then if some Cleric wanted to do some hocus pocus stuff, it'd be up to them.

But, there'd still be the present problem of public accomodations. The baker who won't bake for gays. Even more problematic, the Christian children's aid society that actually does adoptions between children and couples, but won't do gays even though I believe all 50 states now allow gays to adopt.

 

[Skylar]

Ex-Pa. Senator Harris Wofford, 90, announces same-sex marriage in op-ed

I'm all for people CHOOSING to embrace same sex marriage and understanding homosexual people and relations.

What strikes me is that while both Obama and now this Senator chose FREELY to embrace same sex marriage, neither of them seems to understand the difference between that and the Federal Govt "deciding for people" what the rules or traditions of marriage should be.

Would we let Courts decide if the Catholics are right, and only Catholics should participate in communion?
Or the communion rites of Lutherans or others should be endorsed that are open to any who wish to partake?

I understand that once SOCIAL BENEFITS through govt became attached to marriage, then it became a matter of discrimination endorsed by govt.

But nobody ever presented the option to SEPARATE these benefits from govt in order to remove that problem.

Again if Baptisms were tied to whether babies received official state birth certificates or not,
and if people disagreed over the rules of Baptism,
wouldn't the solution clearly be to DETACH the Baptism ritual from the birth certificate process
so that people were free to practice their own beliefs about Baptism without imposing this on the public?

As for TOLERANCE I would compare embracing homosexuality and same sex marriage
with embracing Christianity and group prayer.

It seems hypocritical personally (and when govt is involved it becomes DISCRIMINATORY)
to harass people for rejecting same sex marriage, and trying to coerce them to change their beliefs by law;
but then argue the opposite when it comes to accepting Christian practices and beliefs as part of diversity.

I would answer to President Obama and other officials:
1. Since you had the free choice to decide or even change your mind about homosexuality and same sex marriage, why not respect the same freedom of others?
If you weren't forced by law to recognize it, why would you then insist the govt should force people this way?

2. If you want to encourage tolerance for beliefs that are contrary or even violations,
where is your tolerance when it comes to opposing beliefs?
Not just about marriage, but what about free market health care,
and states rights vs. federal duties specified in the Constitution?

If by Constitutional freedom, people have the right to CHOOSE whether to view abortion as illegal murder
(or as something that women shouldn't be criminalized for by laws that focus on them more than men for responsibility for prevention), and this "right to CHOOSE" trumps the BELIEF that the LIFE of the unborn child should be EQUAL to the life of the mother and other persons already born,
then why isn't gay marriage left as a CHOICE to believe in, similar to other religious rites and rituals,
where the "right to CHOOSE" trumps the BELIEF that all couples should be recognized equally regardless of gender.

Since these positions are all FAITHBASED it seems only fair that if one FAITH BASED belief can't be imposed by govt, then neither should the others.

If the only way to prevent from pushing a biased belief about marriage is to remove it from govt,
and keep neutral civil contracts with the state that don't mention ANY personal relationship between
the partners to a domestic, custody, benefits or estate contract, then at least that would be
CONSISTENT and NON DISCRIMINATORY.

If people cannot change their beliefs, and these are as personal to them as religious beliefs,
these should be separated by church, party, organization or other private affiliation.

If people cannot agree on social benefits because of BELIEFS, why not separate those from govt, similar to separating Hindu and Muslim beliefs, Catholics and Protestant etc. so people can practice what they believe as a group without imposing on other groups.

Because of the conflicts in beliefs over both same sex benefits AND health care by mandate or by free market choice (as well as conflicts over abortion, birth control, and also drug legalization),
isn't it worth it at this point to look at SEPARATING policies by party so that people
can pay for the benefits and the liabilities they believe in, and not impose these on taxpayers
who DON'T agree to pay for that.

How long before it becomes easier to separate programs and funding by party instead of continuing to fight
to impose one biased belief on the public, divided in half where one party agrees and the other objects?

You overemphasize 'belief', placing it up on some pedestal. In terms of rights, its not that important. You can believe whatever you want about same sex marriage. Its the legal rights that gays and lesbians fought for in court.

 

[Syriusly]

Ex-Pa. Senator Harris Wofford, 90, announces same-sex marriage in op-ed

I'm all for people CHOOSING to embrace same sex marriage and understanding homosexual people and relations.

What strikes me is that while both Obama and now this Senator chose FREELY to embrace same sex marriage, neither of them seems to understand the difference between that and the Federal Govt "deciding for people" what the rules or traditions of marriage should be. ?

I agree-the Federal Government should not be deciding for the people what the rules of marriage should be.

Which is why I was glad(and I am sure you were to) when the Supreme Court told the Federal government exactly that- when it overturned as unconstitutional DOMA

The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) (Pub.L. 104–199, 110 Stat. 2419, enacted September 21, 1996, 1 U.S.C. § 7 and 28 U.S.C. § 1738C) is a United States federal law that, prior to being ruled unconstitutional, defined marriage for federal purposes as the union of one man and one woman, and allowed states to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages granted under the laws of other states

The people are free to define marriage as we wish- so long as how we do so does not violate the Constitution. The Supreme Court has overturned State marriage laws 4 times now on the grounds that they were unconstitutional- starting with Loving- and ending with Obergefell.

Because of the Supreme Court decisions- mixed race couples and gay couples can get married in all 50 states.

And I think that is a good thing.

Dear Syriusly For the same reason that DOMA was unconstitutional,
I am finding that establishing same sex marriage through the state by federal decision instead of consent of the people is unconstitutional.

Of course, if the people agreed, either by consensus or agreed by vote or other means,
then if that decision came from the people, then it would be constitutional.

Especially when it comes through Federal court, which is under Constitutional limits by the First Amendment,
in cases like this where BELIEFS are involved on both sides,
then it is technically ask govt to make a judgment call for the people,
which is like the Pope deciding how to interpret law and the Bible, and decide
if the church should recognize gay marraige or not.!

Emily

Do you think states should still be able to make it illegal for mixed race couples to marry?

Because the basis for Obergefell is the same as it was for Loving- which is that the Supreme Court can overturn unconstitutional laws- regardless of whether people agree by vote or other means.

Remember when Loving overturned Virginia's ban on mixed race marriages- the majority of Americans believed that mixed race relations- let alone marriage- were wrong- and for many in the South that mixed race marriages were condemned by the Bible.

If you think that Obergefell was unconstitutional- why haven't you been objecting to Loving for the last 50 years?

 

[emilynghiem]

Ex-Pa. Senator Harris Wofford, 90, announces same-sex marriage in op-ed

I'm all for people CHOOSING to embrace same sex marriage and understanding homosexual people and relations.

What strikes me is that while both Obama and now this Senator chose FREELY to embrace same sex marriage, neither of them seems to understand the difference between that and the Federal Govt "deciding for people" what the rules or traditions of marriage should be.

Would we let Courts decide if the Catholics are right, and only Catholics should participate in communion?
Or the communion rites of Lutherans or others should be endorsed that are open to any who wish to partake?

I understand that once SOCIAL BENEFITS through govt became attached to marriage, then it became a matter of discrimination endorsed by govt.

But nobody ever presented the option to SEPARATE these benefits from govt in order to remove that problem.

Again if Baptisms were tied to whether babies received official state birth certificates or not,
and if people disagreed over the rules of Baptism,
wouldn't the solution clearly be to DETACH the Baptism ritual from the birth certificate process
so that people were free to practice their own beliefs about Baptism without imposing this on the public?

As for TOLERANCE I would compare embracing homosexuality and same sex marriage
with embracing Christianity and group prayer.

It seems hypocritical personally (and when govt is involved it becomes DISCRIMINATORY)
to harass people for rejecting same sex marriage, and trying to coerce them to change their beliefs by law;
but then argue the opposite when it comes to accepting Christian practices and beliefs as part of diversity.

I would answer to President Obama and other officials:
1. Since you had the free choice to decide or even change your mind about homosexuality and same sex marriage, why not respect the same freedom of others?
If you weren't forced by law to recognize it, why would you then insist the govt should force people this way?

2. If you want to encourage tolerance for beliefs that are contrary or even violations,
where is your tolerance when it comes to opposing beliefs?
Not just about marriage, but what about free market health care,
and states rights vs. federal duties specified in the Constitution?

If by Constitutional freedom, people have the right to CHOOSE whether to view abortion as illegal murder
(or as something that women shouldn't be criminalized for by laws that focus on them more than men for responsibility for prevention), and this "right to CHOOSE" trumps the BELIEF that the LIFE of the unborn child should be EQUAL to the life of the mother and other persons already born,
then why isn't gay marriage left as a CHOICE to believe in, similar to other religious rites and rituals,
where the "right to CHOOSE" trumps the BELIEF that all couples should be recognized equally regardless of gender.

Since these positions are all FAITHBASED it seems only fair that if one FAITH BASED belief can't be imposed by govt, then neither should the others.

If the only way to prevent from pushing a biased belief about marriage is to remove it from govt,
and keep neutral civil contracts with the state that don't mention ANY personal relationship between
the partners to a domestic, custody, benefits or estate contract, then at least that would be
CONSISTENT and NON DISCRIMINATORY.

If people cannot change their beliefs, and these are as personal to them as religious beliefs,
these should be separated by church, party, organization or other private affiliation.

If people cannot agree on social benefits because of BELIEFS, why not separate those from govt, similar to separating Hindu and Muslim beliefs, Catholics and Protestant etc. so people can practice what they believe as a group without imposing on other groups.

Because of the conflicts in beliefs over both same sex benefits AND health care by mandate or by free market choice (as well as conflicts over abortion, birth control, and also drug legalization),
isn't it worth it at this point to look at SEPARATING policies by party so that people
can pay for the benefits and the liabilities they believe in, and not impose these on taxpayers
who DON'T agree to pay for that.

How long before it becomes easier to separate programs and funding by party instead of continuing to fight
to impose one biased belief on the public, divided in half where one party agrees and the other objects?

You obviously have no clue as to what civil marriage constitutes.

Dear NYcarbineer Actually I AGREE the whole problem IS to separate the civil contracts from the social traditions.

The PROBLEM is where the liberals draw the line is STILL NOT NEUTRAL AND SECULAR ENOUGH. It already mixes govt with social values, programming and regulation!

NYcarbineer Where I would say neutrality would work is
setting up the "domestic partnerships" and "civil unions or contracts" to be
VOID of any labels or conditions at all, such as conditions that the two people be romantically involved at all!

Just make it where any partners can set up a civil union/partnership/contract
and can name whatever BENEFICIARIES they want to recognize under that.

Do you agree that would be NEUTRAL?

NOTE: If people don't agree on benefits, such as whether to recognize same sex couples, or who constitutes a dependent, THAT's where I recommend that people organize their programs by affiliated GROUPS or PARTY or NONPROFIT networks that SHARE their values.
Who said this has to be done through Govt?
Why can't there be subgroups that people AGREE represent them.
And then maybe the people can direct their taxes to that, or govt or states can direct funds to cover catastrophic issues as necessary for public health safety and security but leave the
private business to the people to manage as needed.

 

[Skylar]

Ex-Pa. Senator Harris Wofford, 90, announces same-sex marriage in op-ed

I'm all for people CHOOSING to embrace same sex marriage and understanding homosexual people and relations.

What strikes me is that while both Obama and now this Senator chose FREELY to embrace same sex marriage, neither of them seems to understand the difference between that and the Federal Govt "deciding for people" what the rules or traditions of marriage should be.

Would we let Courts decide if the Catholics are right, and only Catholics should participate in communion?
Or the communion rites of Lutherans or others should be endorsed that are open to any who wish to partake?

I understand that once SOCIAL BENEFITS through govt became attached to marriage, then it became a matter of discrimination endorsed by govt.

But nobody ever presented the option to SEPARATE these benefits from govt in order to remove that problem.

Again if Baptisms were tied to whether babies received official state birth certificates or not,
and if people disagreed over the rules of Baptism,
wouldn't the solution clearly be to DETACH the Baptism ritual from the birth certificate process
so that people were free to practice their own beliefs about Baptism without imposing this on the public?

As for TOLERANCE I would compare embracing homosexuality and same sex marriage
with embracing Christianity and group prayer.

It seems hypocritical personally (and when govt is involved it becomes DISCRIMINATORY)
to harass people for rejecting same sex marriage, and trying to coerce them to change their beliefs by law;
but then argue the opposite when it comes to accepting Christian practices and beliefs as part of diversity.

I would answer to President Obama and other officials:
1. Since you had the free choice to decide or even change your mind about homosexuality and same sex marriage, why not respect the same freedom of others?
If you weren't forced by law to recognize it, why would you then insist the govt should force people this way?

2. If you want to encourage tolerance for beliefs that are contrary or even violations,
where is your tolerance when it comes to opposing beliefs?
Not just about marriage, but what about free market health care,
and states rights vs. federal duties specified in the Constitution?

If by Constitutional freedom, people have the right to CHOOSE whether to view abortion as illegal murder
(or as something that women shouldn't be criminalized for by laws that focus on them more than men for responsibility for prevention), and this "right to CHOOSE" trumps the BELIEF that the LIFE of the unborn child should be EQUAL to the life of the mother and other persons already born,
then why isn't gay marriage left as a CHOICE to believe in, similar to other religious rites and rituals,
where the "right to CHOOSE" trumps the BELIEF that all couples should be recognized equally regardless of gender.

Since these positions are all FAITHBASED it seems only fair that if one FAITH BASED belief can't be imposed by govt, then neither should the others.

If the only way to prevent from pushing a biased belief about marriage is to remove it from govt,
and keep neutral civil contracts with the state that don't mention ANY personal relationship between
the partners to a domestic, custody, benefits or estate contract, then at least that would be
CONSISTENT and NON DISCRIMINATORY.

If people cannot change their beliefs, and these are as personal to them as religious beliefs,
these should be separated by church, party, organization or other private affiliation.

If people cannot agree on social benefits because of BELIEFS, why not separate those from govt, similar to separating Hindu and Muslim beliefs, Catholics and Protestant etc. so people can practice what they believe as a group without imposing on other groups.

Because of the conflicts in beliefs over both same sex benefits AND health care by mandate or by free market choice (as well as conflicts over abortion, birth control, and also drug legalization),
isn't it worth it at this point to look at SEPARATING policies by party so that people
can pay for the benefits and the liabilities they believe in, and not impose these on taxpayers
who DON'T agree to pay for that.

How long before it becomes easier to separate programs and funding by party instead of continuing to fight
to impose one biased belief on the public, divided in half where one party agrees and the other objects?

You obviously have no clue as to what civil marriage constitutes.

Dear NYcarbineer Actually I AGREE the whole problem IS to separate the civil contracts from the social traditions.

The PROBLEM is where the liberals draw the line is STILL NOT NEUTRAL AND SECULAR ENOUGH. It already mixes govt with social values, programming and regulation!

So we void all marriages and marriage licenses in the country......just to keep gays out of it?

Why bother?

Just allow gays to marry and the situation is resolved. This massive reclassification, voiding of all marriage licenses and the changing of the laws of 50 of 50 States.......serves no practical purpose. As marriage serves all the same ends....and requires none of the additional work.

NOTE: If people don't agree on benefits, such as whether to recognize same sex couples, or who constitutes a dependent, THAT's where I recommend that people organize their programs by affiliated GROUPS or PARTY or NONPROFIT networks that SHARE their values.
Who said this has to be done through Govt?
Why can't there be subgroups that people AGREE represent them.
And then maybe the people can direct their taxes to that, or govt or states can direct funds to cover catastrophic issues as necessary for public health safety and security but leave the
private business to the people to manage as needed.

People don't need to agree. That's something else your argument doesn't take into consideration: people disagreeing. And the law resolving their dispute.

Its entirely possible for people to disagree and for one party to be wrong. The idea that if two parties disagree that the law should just abandon the entire topic in the name of 'neutrality' is unnecessarily complicated, contrary to our conception of law and utterly needless.

 

[Timmy]

Legal gov marriage has nothing to do with religion marriage . You do know that , right ?

 

[emilynghiem]

Ex-Pa. Senator Harris Wofford, 90, announces same-sex marriage in op-ed

I'm all for people CHOOSING to embrace same sex marriage and understanding homosexual people and relations.

What strikes me is that while both Obama and now this Senator chose FREELY to embrace same sex marriage, neither of them seems to understand the difference between that and the Federal Govt "deciding for people" what the rules or traditions of marriage should be. ?

I agree-the Federal Government should not be deciding for the people what the rules of marriage should be.

Which is why I was glad(and I am sure you were to) when the Supreme Court told the Federal government exactly that- when it overturned as unconstitutional DOMA

The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) (Pub.L. 104–199, 110 Stat. 2419, enacted September 21, 1996, 1 U.S.C. § 7 and 28 U.S.C. § 1738C) is a United States federal law that, prior to being ruled unconstitutional, defined marriage for federal purposes as the union of one man and one woman, and allowed states to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages granted under the laws of other states

The people are free to define marriage as we wish- so long as how we do so does not violate the Constitution. The Supreme Court has overturned State marriage laws 4 times now on the grounds that they were unconstitutional- starting with Loving- and ending with Obergefell.

Because of the Supreme Court decisions- mixed race couples and gay couples can get married in all 50 states.

And I think that is a good thing.

Dear Syriusly For the same reason that DOMA was unconstitutional,
I am finding that establishing same sex marriage through the state by federal decision instead of consent of the people is unconstitutional.

Of course, if the people agreed, either by consensus or agreed by vote or other means,
then if that decision came from the people, then it would be constitutional.

Especially when it comes through Federal court, which is under Constitutional limits by the First Amendment,
in cases like this where BELIEFS are involved on both sides,
then it is technically ask govt to make a judgment call for the people,
which is like the Pope deciding how to interpret law and the Bible, and decide
if the church should recognize gay marraige or not.!

Emily

Do you think states should still be able to make it illegal for mixed race couples to marry?

Because the basis for Obergefell is the same as it was for Loving- which is that the Supreme Court can overturn unconstitutional laws- regardless of whether people agree by vote or other means.

Remember when Loving overturned Virginia's ban on mixed race marriages- the majority of Americans believed that mixed race relations- let alone marriage- were wrong- and for many in the South that mixed race marriages were condemned by the Bible.

If you think that Obergefell was unconstitutional- why haven't you been objecting to Loving for the last 50 years?

1. No, because once marriage is taken out of govt, then people can practice what they want without having to go through court to make it legal/illegal.

People already decide for their own families if they accept or don't accept their relatives partners. This discrimination happens all the time. It can be rejection for any number of reasons. This is private.

2. I have published statements in the early 1990's protesting the lack of separation of beliefs from govt. see for example ISOCRACY and the FIRST AMENDMENT http://www.houstonprogressive.org

To those who believe that no laws may be made without, to some degree,
establishing moral values, or without favoring the faith of those who believe
in representative democracy as opposed to other forms of governance, it is
clear that enforcing such legislative or judicial decisions against the will
of affected dissenters would further violate their First Amendment rights as
defined above. Examples of governmental policies unconstitutional by these standards include tax laws that do not guarantee taxpayers' choice of which institutions or policies to fund; the electoral college and jury systems that require a certain degree of faith in the human conscience; immigration laws that discriminate against those whose believe in equal rights and freedoms for all "people"; the death penalty or other sentences being imposed or denied against the beliefs of those affected by the crime or the punishment; and bills on such issues as abortion and same-sex marriage that favor one moral view over another. One solution may be to define citizenship requirements
based on the First Amendment, so that individuals may claim their
Constitutional rights and freedoms by agreeing to respect the same for all
people equally and, in case of conflict, to form consensual policies or
contracts through mediation techniques that preserve the freedom of speech and the right to petition. Civil governance depends on public legal education,
whether through church, state, media, non-profit, or business entities, so
that all people, fully informed of their rights and freedoms, may participate
equally in the democratic process, through the institutions of their choice,
to draft social contracts directly by consensus, to balance individual freedom
with global peace and security, and to achieve lasting justice.

Since I became of aware of Constitutional conflicts around 1990-1993, I have been objecting to a NUMBER of issues that have been mixed in with govt. I HAVE argued the following issues involve beliefs and violate separation of church and state:

a. marriage laws IN GENERAL (covers ALL CASES)
b. termination issues including abortion euthanasia assisted suicide
death penalty
c. immigration laws and whether people believe rights are inherently equal, depend on birth, depend on God, depend on Govt, etc.
d. In general, beliefs about free will/choice/religious freedom, judicial freedom and consent of the governed; to what degree people have the right to consent to social laws and contracts and "what is the criteria" that decides where govt has dominion over individuals; (faith in restorative justice and consensus: when is the democratic process legal and what defines where civil rights violations occur, to what degree is it necessary to resolve conflicts or to separate policies/funding in case of disagreement, etc.)

and what I've been focusing on lately:

e. people who believe that right come naturally from God/life/human nature and laws are used to limit government from imposing too much
vs.
people who believe that govt represents the collective will of people
and should be used to supplement and manage public programs centrally

Syriusly
The real issue underneath it all is CONSENT, free choice and free will.

All the arguments I've ever heard from people, from all sides of the religious and political spectrum, are framed in terms of defending what EACH PERSON believes, wills, chooses and CONSENTS to.

So that's the underlying principle for me, where do we consent or dissent
on policy, and how can we structure things to work with these needs and demands, differences and interests?

 

[emilynghiem]

Ex-Pa. Senator Harris Wofford, 90, announces same-sex marriage in op-ed

I'm all for people CHOOSING to embrace same sex marriage and understanding homosexual people and relations.

What strikes me is that while both Obama and now this Senator chose FREELY to embrace same sex marriage, neither of them seems to understand the difference between that and the Federal Govt "deciding for people" what the rules or traditions of marriage should be.

Would we let Courts decide if the Catholics are right, and only Catholics should participate in communion?
Or the communion rites of Lutherans or others should be endorsed that are open to any who wish to partake?

I understand that once SOCIAL BENEFITS through govt became attached to marriage, then it became a matter of discrimination endorsed by govt.

But nobody ever presented the option to SEPARATE these benefits from govt in order to remove that problem.

Again if Baptisms were tied to whether babies received official state birth certificates or not,
and if people disagreed over the rules of Baptism,
wouldn't the solution clearly be to DETACH the Baptism ritual from the birth certificate process
so that people were free to practice their own beliefs about Baptism without imposing this on the public?

As for TOLERANCE I would compare embracing homosexuality and same sex marriage
with embracing Christianity and group prayer.

It seems hypocritical personally (and when govt is involved it becomes DISCRIMINATORY)
to harass people for rejecting same sex marriage, and trying to coerce them to change their beliefs by law;
but then argue the opposite when it comes to accepting Christian practices and beliefs as part of diversity.

I would answer to President Obama and other officials:
1. Since you had the free choice to decide or even change your mind about homosexuality and same sex marriage, why not respect the same freedom of others?
If you weren't forced by law to recognize it, why would you then insist the govt should force people this way?

2. If you want to encourage tolerance for beliefs that are contrary or even violations,
where is your tolerance when it comes to opposing beliefs?
Not just about marriage, but what about free market health care,
and states rights vs. federal duties specified in the Constitution?

If by Constitutional freedom, people have the right to CHOOSE whether to view abortion as illegal murder
(or as something that women shouldn't be criminalized for by laws that focus on them more than men for responsibility for prevention), and this "right to CHOOSE" trumps the BELIEF that the LIFE of the unborn child should be EQUAL to the life of the mother and other persons already born,
then why isn't gay marriage left as a CHOICE to believe in, similar to other religious rites and rituals,
where the "right to CHOOSE" trumps the BELIEF that all couples should be recognized equally regardless of gender.

Since these positions are all FAITHBASED it seems only fair that if one FAITH BASED belief can't be imposed by govt, then neither should the others.

If the only way to prevent from pushing a biased belief about marriage is to remove it from govt,
and keep neutral civil contracts with the state that don't mention ANY personal relationship between
the partners to a domestic, custody, benefits or estate contract, then at least that would be
CONSISTENT and NON DISCRIMINATORY.

If people cannot change their beliefs, and these are as personal to them as religious beliefs,
these should be separated by church, party, organization or other private affiliation.

If people cannot agree on social benefits because of BELIEFS, why not separate those from govt, similar to separating Hindu and Muslim beliefs, Catholics and Protestant etc. so people can practice what they believe as a group without imposing on other groups.

Because of the conflicts in beliefs over both same sex benefits AND health care by mandate or by free market choice (as well as conflicts over abortion, birth control, and also drug legalization),
isn't it worth it at this point to look at SEPARATING policies by party so that people
can pay for the benefits and the liabilities they believe in, and not impose these on taxpayers
who DON'T agree to pay for that.

How long before it becomes easier to separate programs and funding by party instead of continuing to fight
to impose one biased belief on the public, divided in half where one party agrees and the other objects?

You obviously have no clue as to what civil marriage constitutes.

Dear NYcarbineer Actually I AGREE the whole problem IS to separate the civil contracts from the social traditions.

The PROBLEM is where the liberals draw the line is STILL NOT NEUTRAL AND SECULAR ENOUGH. It already mixes govt with social values, programming and regulation!

So we void all marriages and marriage licenses in the country......just to keep gays out of it?

Why bother?

Just allow gays to marry and the situation is resolved. This massive reclassification, voiding of all marriage licenses and the changing of the laws of 50 of 50 States.......serves no practical purpose. As marriage serves all the same ends....and requires none of the additional work.

NOTE: If people don't agree on benefits, such as whether to recognize same sex couples, or who constitutes a dependent, THAT's where I recommend that people organize their programs by affiliated GROUPS or PARTY or NONPROFIT networks that SHARE their values.
Who said this has to be done through Govt?
Why can't there be subgroups that people AGREE represent them.
And then maybe the people can direct their taxes to that, or govt or states can direct funds to cover catastrophic issues as necessary for public health safety and security but leave the
private business to the people to manage as needed.

People don't need to agree. That's something else your argument doesn't take into consideration: people disagreeing. And the law resolving their dispute.

Its entirely possible for people to disagree and for one party to be wrong. The idea that if two parties disagree that the law should just abandon the entire topic in the name of 'neutrality' is unnecessarily complicated, contrary to our conception of law and utterly needless.

Syriusly you don't have to void anything, just transfer the responsibility to local institutions that people agree represent them.

 

[emilynghiem]

Legal gov marriage has nothing to do with religion marriage . You do know that , right ?

Dear Timmy it's supposed to be that way. But the way it's set up now where govt is involved, it's not separated enough.

Compare the way churches do their own communions their own way, and don't have to pass laws making it legal or illegal to do X Y Z. That's independent, where people fund and choose the way they want to set up communions, baptisms, through the organization they want to join.

Funerals and burials have regulations through the state.
If enough people disagreed on that, yes, that would get challenged to allow private choices also.

Homeowners and civic associations are pretty good examples of both local management/representation and also what can go wrong if checks balances, due process and conflict resolution aren't applied on the local level the way these are needed globally.

If you and Syriusly believe this would be too much work to reorganize,
that's why we need to get this OUT of the state level and let people manage this locally.

If it's too much trouble, it certainly doesn't need to be managed by a centralized govt with responsibility for the masses all dumped on limited administration. if people are organized by likeminded beliefs and affiliation it is much easier to manage. You wouldn't have people arguing over same sex benefits and adoptions, for example, if everyone in that network AGREED to support that. And we wouldn't have such contention over prolife/prochoice funding if we were organized by like beliefs. So this would make it easier to manage benefits, since those conflicts would be bypassed by organizing around shared beliefs, similar to church networks. Why not use our democratically elected party structures to fund and run programs?
Not only would this take huge burdens off our centralized govt and allow DIVERSITY management, but it would allow LOCALIZED representation and TRAINING of administrations so more people would have education and work running the very programs they support. It would be easier to train people and gain experience to run for office if we had more responsibility for programs delegated to state and local administrations to manage effectively.

ie equalizing and redistributing the responsibility and resources more evenly on local levels for all people to access, instead of centralizing all power in the hands of the few that ends up getting monopolized and out of reach of people with interests that are supposed to be equally protected and represented.

 

[Skylar]

Ex-Pa. Senator Harris Wofford, 90, announces same-sex marriage in op-ed

I'm all for people CHOOSING to embrace same sex marriage and understanding homosexual people and relations.

What strikes me is that while both Obama and now this Senator chose FREELY to embrace same sex marriage, neither of them seems to understand the difference between that and the Federal Govt "deciding for people" what the rules or traditions of marriage should be. ?

I agree-the Federal Government should not be deciding for the people what the rules of marriage should be.

Which is why I was glad(and I am sure you were to) when the Supreme Court told the Federal government exactly that- when it overturned as unconstitutional DOMA

The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) (Pub.L. 104–199, 110 Stat. 2419, enacted September 21, 1996, 1 U.S.C. § 7 and 28 U.S.C. § 1738C) is a United States federal law that, prior to being ruled unconstitutional, defined marriage for federal purposes as the union of one man and one woman, and allowed states to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages granted under the laws of other states

The people are free to define marriage as we wish- so long as how we do so does not violate the Constitution. The Supreme Court has overturned State marriage laws 4 times now on the grounds that they were unconstitutional- starting with Loving- and ending with Obergefell.

Because of the Supreme Court decisions- mixed race couples and gay couples can get married in all 50 states.

And I think that is a good thing.

Dear Syriusly For the same reason that DOMA was unconstitutional,
I am finding that establishing same sex marriage through the state by federal decision instead of consent of the people is unconstitutional.

Of course, if the people agreed, either by consensus or agreed by vote or other means,
then if that decision came from the people, then it would be constitutional.

Especially when it comes through Federal court, which is under Constitutional limits by the First Amendment,
in cases like this where BELIEFS are involved on both sides,
then it is technically ask govt to make a judgment call for the people,
which is like the Pope deciding how to interpret law and the Bible, and decide
if the church should recognize gay marraige or not.!

Emily

Do you think states should still be able to make it illegal for mixed race couples to marry?

Because the basis for Obergefell is the same as it was for Loving- which is that the Supreme Court can overturn unconstitutional laws- regardless of whether people agree by vote or other means.

Remember when Loving overturned Virginia's ban on mixed race marriages- the majority of Americans believed that mixed race relations- let alone marriage- were wrong- and for many in the South that mixed race marriages were condemned by the Bible.

If you think that Obergefell was unconstitutional- why haven't you been objecting to Loving for the last 50 years?

1. No, because once marriage is taken out of govt, then people can practice what they want without having to go through court to make it legal/illegal.

They can do that now. They can go to their church, have a priest marry them....and then just never involve the government. The marriage is then void of government interference.......recognition.....protection. Anything.

Why would void all marriage licenses everywhere.....just to provide people with what they already have?

 

[Skylar]

Ex-Pa. Senator Harris Wofford, 90, announces same-sex marriage in op-ed

I'm all for people CHOOSING to embrace same sex marriage and understanding homosexual people and relations.

What strikes me is that while both Obama and now this Senator chose FREELY to embrace same sex marriage, neither of them seems to understand the difference between that and the Federal Govt "deciding for people" what the rules or traditions of marriage should be.

Would we let Courts decide if the Catholics are right, and only Catholics should participate in communion?
Or the communion rites of Lutherans or others should be endorsed that are open to any who wish to partake?

I understand that once SOCIAL BENEFITS through govt became attached to marriage, then it became a matter of discrimination endorsed by govt.

But nobody ever presented the option to SEPARATE these benefits from govt in order to remove that problem.

Again if Baptisms were tied to whether babies received official state birth certificates or not,
and if people disagreed over the rules of Baptism,
wouldn't the solution clearly be to DETACH the Baptism ritual from the birth certificate process
so that people were free to practice their own beliefs about Baptism without imposing this on the public?

As for TOLERANCE I would compare embracing homosexuality and same sex marriage
with embracing Christianity and group prayer.

It seems hypocritical personally (and when govt is involved it becomes DISCRIMINATORY)
to harass people for rejecting same sex marriage, and trying to coerce them to change their beliefs by law;
but then argue the opposite when it comes to accepting Christian practices and beliefs as part of diversity.

I would answer to President Obama and other officials:
1. Since you had the free choice to decide or even change your mind about homosexuality and same sex marriage, why not respect the same freedom of others?
If you weren't forced by law to recognize it, why would you then insist the govt should force people this way?

2. If you want to encourage tolerance for beliefs that are contrary or even violations,
where is your tolerance when it comes to opposing beliefs?
Not just about marriage, but what about free market health care,
and states rights vs. federal duties specified in the Constitution?

If by Constitutional freedom, people have the right to CHOOSE whether to view abortion as illegal murder
(or as something that women shouldn't be criminalized for by laws that focus on them more than men for responsibility for prevention), and this "right to CHOOSE" trumps the BELIEF that the LIFE of the unborn child should be EQUAL to the life of the mother and other persons already born,
then why isn't gay marriage left as a CHOICE to believe in, similar to other religious rites and rituals,
where the "right to CHOOSE" trumps the BELIEF that all couples should be recognized equally regardless of gender.

Since these positions are all FAITHBASED it seems only fair that if one FAITH BASED belief can't be imposed by govt, then neither should the others.

If the only way to prevent from pushing a biased belief about marriage is to remove it from govt,
and keep neutral civil contracts with the state that don't mention ANY personal relationship between
the partners to a domestic, custody, benefits or estate contract, then at least that would be
CONSISTENT and NON DISCRIMINATORY.

If people cannot change their beliefs, and these are as personal to them as religious beliefs,
these should be separated by church, party, organization or other private affiliation.

If people cannot agree on social benefits because of BELIEFS, why not separate those from govt, similar to separating Hindu and Muslim beliefs, Catholics and Protestant etc. so people can practice what they believe as a group without imposing on other groups.

Because of the conflicts in beliefs over both same sex benefits AND health care by mandate or by free market choice (as well as conflicts over abortion, birth control, and also drug legalization),
isn't it worth it at this point to look at SEPARATING policies by party so that people
can pay for the benefits and the liabilities they believe in, and not impose these on taxpayers
who DON'T agree to pay for that.

How long before it becomes easier to separate programs and funding by party instead of continuing to fight
to impose one biased belief on the public, divided in half where one party agrees and the other objects?

You obviously have no clue as to what civil marriage constitutes.

Dear NYcarbineer Actually I AGREE the whole problem IS to separate the civil contracts from the social traditions.

The PROBLEM is where the liberals draw the line is STILL NOT NEUTRAL AND SECULAR ENOUGH. It already mixes govt with social values, programming and regulation!

So we void all marriages and marriage licenses in the country......just to keep gays out of it?

Why bother?

Just allow gays to marry and the situation is resolved. This massive reclassification, voiding of all marriage licenses and the changing of the laws of 50 of 50 States.......serves no practical purpose. As marriage serves all the same ends....and requires none of the additional work.

NOTE: If people don't agree on benefits, such as whether to recognize same sex couples, or who constitutes a dependent, THAT's where I recommend that people organize their programs by affiliated GROUPS or PARTY or NONPROFIT networks that SHARE their values.
Who said this has to be done through Govt?
Why can't there be subgroups that people AGREE represent them.
And then maybe the people can direct their taxes to that, or govt or states can direct funds to cover catastrophic issues as necessary for public health safety and security but leave the
private business to the people to manage as needed.

People don't need to agree. That's something else your argument doesn't take into consideration: people disagreeing. And the law resolving their dispute.

Its entirely possible for people to disagree and for one party to be wrong. The idea that if two parties disagree that the law should just abandon the entire topic in the name of 'neutrality' is unnecessarily complicated, contrary to our conception of law and utterly needless.

Syriusly you don't have to void anything, just transfer the responsibility to local institutions that people agree represent them.

If someone doesn't agree the government represents them.......they don't have to involve the government in their marriage in the slightest. Why then would we change any law, let alone the law of each of 50 States......to provide something that already exists?

 

[Timmy]

Legal gov marriage has nothing to do with religion marriage . You do know that , right ?

Dear Timmy it's supposed to be that way. But the way it's set up now where govt is involved, it's not separated enough.

Why ? Because they call it "marriage "? DOnt be such a baby . It has not effect on any religions marriage requirements .

We have divorce laws too. That has nothing tondo with religion either .

 

[Skylar]

Legal gov marriage has nothing to do with religion marriage . You do know that , right ?

Dear Timmy it's supposed to be that way. But the way it's set up now where govt is involved, it's not separated enough.

How is it 'not separate enough'? The only link you've established is that 'religious marriage' and 'civil marriage' both use the word marriage.

That's it. Why would we change ANY law on such flimsy a basis?

 

[emilynghiem]

Legal gov marriage has nothing to do with religion marriage . You do know that , right ?

Dear Timmy it's supposed to be that way. But the way it's set up now where govt is involved, it's not separated enough.

How is it 'not separate enough'? The only link you've established is that 'religious marriage' and 'civil marriage' both use the word marriage.

That's it. Why would we change ANY law on such flimsy a basis?

Skylar so you think people are making this up and yelling over nothing?

If it doesn't need to be changed or fixed, then maybe the same thinking should be applied to NOT trying to remove GOD references from public institutions.

That's fine as long as people are consistent.

The bigger issue I see going on is DISCRIMINATION
where people lobby to remove GOD and CHRISTIAN references
but then defend INCLUDING gay marriage and not REMOVING that
on similar grounds that "NOT EVERYONE BELIEVES IN THAT."

Do you agree Skylar that if people are going to leave marriage alone,
and quit fighting to exclude same sex couples, then also treat all other issues the same and quit trying to remove Crosses, prayer, God, creation etc.

Just let govt include all of them if we are going to include any.

Does that sound easier than trying to remove each and every
belief that "not everyone believes in" from govt?

 

[Timmy]

Legal marriage has never followed the rules of religion marriage .

What religion approves of justices of the peace ?

 

[Skylar]

Legal gov marriage has nothing to do with religion marriage . You do know that , right ?

Dear Timmy it's supposed to be that way. But the way it's set up now where govt is involved, it's not separated enough.

How is it 'not separate enough'? The only link you've established is that 'religious marriage' and 'civil marriage' both use the word marriage.

That's it. Why would we change ANY law on such flimsy a basis?

Skylar so you think people are making this up and yelling over nothing?

I think they're yelling because they don't want gays to be allowed to be married. And gays disagree.

The law, however, was with the rights of the individual, not the power of the state on this one.

If it doesn't need to be changed or fixed, then maybe the same thinking should be applied to NOT trying to remove GOD references from public institutions.

Marriage need not include any reference to 'god' to be legally binding.

The bigger issue I see going on is DISCRIMINATION
where people lobby to remove GOD and CHRISTIAN references
but then defend INCLUDING gay marriage and not REMOVING that
on similar grounds that "NOT EVERYONE BELIEVES IN THAT."

I'm happy with the discussion about gay marriage, thank you. I'm not biting on the subject change.