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

[emilynghiem]

Homosexuals are making the decision to get married
The federal government is merely accepting that decision

Dear rightwinger it's more than that.

If it was kept under religious freedom and all marriage was practiced in private
where only the NEUTRAL "civil custody/estate agreements" were processed through govt
then it would equal for all sides.

The problem is that benefits and naming the SOCIAL relationship between parties
is NOT agreed upon religiously. This is not just a nominal disagreement, such as
people who don't believe in celebrating Christmas or MLK day but not enough to fight it legally.

The issue of same sex marriage actually VIOLATES people's religious beliefs
similar to making Muslims eat pork or Hindus eat beef.

Three ways I imagine this can be resolved both require ACKNOWLEDGING this imposition.

1. either separate marriage and benefits by state and party and let people work it out so they
do not feel "forced by federal govt" to endorse same sex marriage through the state (which is
also a secondary VIOLATION of Constitutional beliefs that federal govt is not authorized to impose this)

NOTE: I don't disagree with same sex marriage to the same degree as Christians do who are religiously opposed, but I DO DISAGREE on the second level of violation where it is AGAINST CONSTITUTIONAL BELIEFS for federal govt especially courts to make such a decision instead of respecting citizens consent on this issue of faith based beliefs. I would argue all the way to the top if I found a lawyer who would be willing to back the CONSTITUTIONAL argument without depending on the Christian argument; but the only lawyers or law firms with the support to pursue any such arguments legally appear to depend on the Christian argument that loses because it is equally faith based.

2. or possibly call a TRUCE between the religious and secular camps and agree to stop ALL lawsuits and legislation over ALL issues of beliefs, and allow all of them to be endorsed and instituted through govt
including Christmas, cross and prayer references if you are going to include homosexuality and same sex marriage.

3. agree to EQUAL funding: instead of removing Planned Parenthood from govt funds, agree that dollar for dollar equal funds will go to the Nurturing Network another nonprofit to provide alternatives to women to PREVENT abortion. allow EQUAL funding and taxpayer choices of free market health care instead of restricting ACA exemptions to just insurance only and govt only. allow EQUAL funding of medical research on spiritual healing of cancer and other diseases for every dollar spent on either marijuana research or stem cell research, etc.

None of these possible solutions can even take place without first recognizing that equal beliefs were not protected by govt but violated by overreaching with these decisions that were biased by faith based beliefs.

I find it very peculiar if I am the only progressive liberal Democrat even venturing to argue that
Constitutional limits were breached.

If no other Democrats are able to see or make this argument, then something is wrong with the party, like a cult that is deliberately omitting information such as knowledge and access to spiritual healing and is basically being abused to "conspire to violate equal civil rights" by denying knowledge of the law to people.

Very strange. The Constitutional protections of people's personal beliefs is supposed to apply to ALL people,
not just defend the beliefs of party members under party platforms.

I would argue this is a form of discrimination by CREED
and where it creeps into govt and laws/rulings are made based on this discrimination by partisan CREED
that is ALSO a Constitutional violation.

My final assessment of this issue
A. the root argument about same sex marriage and orientation is a TIE
both sides are equally faith based, so govt should not be abused to favor one belief over the other.
I don't agree with using majority rule to decide this, but if people agree with
a govt decision, I will agree with that and go with that decision for that person.
If someone contests I will equally defend that person's right not to be subject to an unfair law
but to find a way to settle the dispute that both sides agree on.

B. the secondary argument that it is unconstitutional for govt to make a decision
for people that violate the beliefs of one side or the other
I WILL agree that is is a violation and that it affects both sides

C. the third level argument that discrimination is going on by partisan creed
and colluding with govt and political officials to impose biased decisions based on faith
I WILL agree this is a violation and that it affects both sides

I am NOT against people pursuing and practicing same sex marriage.

But the other two levels of violations by abusing govt and also political party to abuse govt,
YES I argue those two levels of abuses are unconstitutional and violate
the VERY principles the Democrats and liberals use for their own arguments.
So this is dangerous and damaging to people on all sides, it weakens both the
arguments for prochoice and for separation of church and state both championed by Democrats and liberals.

I find it distressing to be one of the few prochoice liberals
with knowledge of spiritual healing and willingness to point out
that the push for laws that "go too far" violate Democratic principles
of prochoice arguments against govt intruding on personal health care decisions
and of secular arguments to keep personal and collective beliefs out of govt.

Very sad! To be a minority among minorities. Flabbergasting if not frustrating.
And I am not against same sex marriage but believe it would be fully and equally protected
by keeping these decisions out of govt. Where am I going to find support for that???

Frankly, you have no right to push your religious beliefs on others and the government is forbidden to consider your religion in making laws

Your religion is under no obligation to perform same sex marriage. You can marry someone of either sex...it is your choice

Is this a great country or what

^^^ That ^^^

Dear Seawytch Your bias is showing again.
Please do NOT confuse me with or accuse me of supporting arguments I oppose equally
for the same reasons. It is just as unconstitutional to try to BAN or DENY same sex marriage
through the govt as it is to ESTABLISH and ENDORSE, because the First Amendment
goes both ways and the Fourteenth Amendment protects beliefs equally on both sides from discrimination by creed.

Seawytch my viewpoint is different, as I can explain better using the prolife/prochoice positions.
I am prochoice and believe abortion cannot be criminalized or illegalized
because it will punish the woman more than the man, and the men are either equally responsible
for the decision to have sex, or more responsible in the case of rape or coercion in general.

However, I believe the prolife BELIEFS should be equally respected, protected and represented by law.
So if prolife people believe abortion is murder and cannot be legalized without violating their beliefs,
then laws need to be rewritten to neither favor or exclude prolife or prochoice
but be NEUTRAL and satisfy people of BOTH beliefs.

That still makes me prochoice even though I defend the right
of prolife people to reform laws so they don't feel their beliefs are imposed upon or violated.

SAME WITH THE MARRIAGE LAWS.

I don't have to be anti gay or against gay marriage
to argue for the right of people to CONSENT to laws
that involve faith based beliefs on both sides.

I am arguing BOTH SIDES ARE WRONG INCLUDING THE
CHRISTIAN if they push or pass laws that violate or deny the
beliefs and protections of people of the other belief.

So that's what makes my argument different.

I and both DEFENDING and ADMONISHING BOTH SIDES
if the laws passed do not protect and represent people of all beliefs
as I am arguing that Constitutional standards require of GOVT.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"However, I believe the prolife BELIEFS should be equally respected, protected and represented by law."

And those beliefs are.

Citizens are at liberty to believe whatever they so desire – to believe life and ‘personhood’ begins at conception, and act in accordance with those beliefs concerning their own personal lives, and to advocate for their beliefs in the context of private society.

As a fact of settled, accepted Constitutional law, however, government may not seek to compel a woman to give birth against her will through force of law.

It’s important to understand that the 14th Amendment jurisprudence which prohibits government from violating the privacy rights of women applies solely to government, not private persons or originations.

Consequently, privacy rights jurisprudence safeguards the beliefs of those on both side of the issue, protecting the rights of choice, free expression, and self-determination, free from unwarranted interference by the state.

 

[HappyJoy]

Homosexuals are making the decision to get married
The federal government is merely accepting that decision

Dear rightwinger it's more than that.

If it was kept under religious freedom and all marriage was practiced in private
where only the NEUTRAL "civil custody/estate agreements" were processed through govt
then it would equal for all sides.

The problem is that benefits and naming the SOCIAL relationship between parties
is NOT agreed upon religiously. This is not just a nominal disagreement, such as
people who don't believe in celebrating Christmas or MLK day but not enough to fight it legally.

The issue of same sex marriage actually VIOLATES people's religious beliefs
similar to making Muslims eat pork or Hindus eat beef.

Three ways I imagine this can be resolved both require ACKNOWLEDGING this imposition.

1. either separate marriage and benefits by state and party and let people work it out so they
do not feel "forced by federal govt" to endorse same sex marriage through the state (which is
also a secondary VIOLATION of Constitutional beliefs that federal govt is not authorized to impose this)

NOTE: I don't disagree with same sex marriage to the same degree as Christians do who are religiously opposed, but I DO DISAGREE on the second level of violation where it is AGAINST CONSTITUTIONAL BELIEFS for federal govt especially courts to make such a decision instead of respecting citizens consent on this issue of faith based beliefs. I would argue all the way to the top if I found a lawyer who would be willing to back the CONSTITUTIONAL argument without depending on the Christian argument; but the only lawyers or law firms with the support to pursue any such arguments legally appear to depend on the Christian argument that loses because it is equally faith based.

2. or possibly call a TRUCE between the religious and secular camps and agree to stop ALL lawsuits and legislation over ALL issues of beliefs, and allow all of them to be endorsed and instituted through govt
including Christmas, cross and prayer references if you are going to include homosexuality and same sex marriage.

3. agree to EQUAL funding: instead of removing Planned Parenthood from govt funds, agree that dollar for dollar equal funds will go to the Nurturing Network another nonprofit to provide alternatives to women to PREVENT abortion. allow EQUAL funding and taxpayer choices of free market health care instead of restricting ACA exemptions to just insurance only and govt only. allow EQUAL funding of medical research on spiritual healing of cancer and other diseases for every dollar spent on either marijuana research or stem cell research, etc.

None of these possible solutions can even take place without first recognizing that equal beliefs were not protected by govt but violated by overreaching with these decisions that were biased by faith based beliefs.

I find it very peculiar if I am the only progressive liberal Democrat even venturing to argue that
Constitutional limits were breached.

If no other Democrats are able to see or make this argument, then something is wrong with the party, like a cult that is deliberately omitting information such as knowledge and access to spiritual healing and is basically being abused to "conspire to violate equal civil rights" by denying knowledge of the law to people.

Very strange. The Constitutional protections of people's personal beliefs is supposed to apply to ALL people,
not just defend the beliefs of party members under party platforms.

I would argue this is a form of discrimination by CREED
and where it creeps into govt and laws/rulings are made based on this discrimination by partisan CREED
that is ALSO a Constitutional violation.

My final assessment of this issue
A. the root argument about same sex marriage and orientation is a TIE
both sides are equally faith based, so govt should not be abused to favor one belief over the other.
I don't agree with using majority rule to decide this, but if people agree with
a govt decision, I will agree with that and go with that decision for that person.
If someone contests I will equally defend that person's right not to be subject to an unfair law
but to find a way to settle the dispute that both sides agree on.

B. the secondary argument that it is unconstitutional for govt to make a decision
for people that violate the beliefs of one side or the other
I WILL agree that is is a violation and that it affects both sides

C. the third level argument that discrimination is going on by partisan creed
and colluding with govt and political officials to impose biased decisions based on faith
I WILL agree this is a violation and that it affects both sides

I am NOT against people pursuing and practicing same sex marriage.

But the other two levels of violations by abusing govt and also political party to abuse govt,
YES I argue those two levels of abuses are unconstitutional and violate
the VERY principles the Democrats and liberals use for their own arguments.
So this is dangerous and damaging to people on all sides, it weakens both the
arguments for prochoice and for separation of church and state both championed by Democrats and liberals.

I find it distressing to be one of the few prochoice liberals
with knowledge of spiritual healing and willingness to point out
that the push for laws that "go too far" violate Democratic principles
of prochoice arguments against govt intruding on personal health care decisions
and of secular arguments to keep personal and collective beliefs out of govt.

Very sad! To be a minority among minorities. Flabbergasting if not frustrating.
And I am not against same sex marriage but believe it would be fully and equally protected
by keeping these decisions out of govt. Where am I going to find support for that???

Frankly, you have no right to push your religious beliefs on others and the government is forbidden to consider your religion in making laws

Your religion is under no obligation to perform same sex marriage. You can marry someone of either sex...it is your choice

Is this a great country or what

But progressives want to force people to drive Fuel efficient cars if they don't want to, extort people to buy insurance they will never need, bake cakes for people they don't want nothing to do with… Etc. lol
Land of the free? Lol

None of that has anything to do with religious freedom.

Gas guzzling cars create pollution and are bad for the environment. Poor baby, must have been pissed when you could no longer buy fully leaded gasoline or even paint your house with lead paint or let Tyson poison your chicken casserole.

 

[Rustic]

Homosexuals are making the decision to get married
The federal government is merely accepting that decision

Dear rightwinger it's more than that.

If it was kept under religious freedom and all marriage was practiced in private
where only the NEUTRAL "civil custody/estate agreements" were processed through govt
then it would equal for all sides.

The problem is that benefits and naming the SOCIAL relationship between parties
is NOT agreed upon religiously. This is not just a nominal disagreement, such as
people who don't believe in celebrating Christmas or MLK day but not enough to fight it legally.

The issue of same sex marriage actually VIOLATES people's religious beliefs
similar to making Muslims eat pork or Hindus eat beef.

Three ways I imagine this can be resolved both require ACKNOWLEDGING this imposition.

1. either separate marriage and benefits by state and party and let people work it out so they
do not feel "forced by federal govt" to endorse same sex marriage through the state (which is
also a secondary VIOLATION of Constitutional beliefs that federal govt is not authorized to impose this)

NOTE: I don't disagree with same sex marriage to the same degree as Christians do who are religiously opposed, but I DO DISAGREE on the second level of violation where it is AGAINST CONSTITUTIONAL BELIEFS for federal govt especially courts to make such a decision instead of respecting citizens consent on this issue of faith based beliefs. I would argue all the way to the top if I found a lawyer who would be willing to back the CONSTITUTIONAL argument without depending on the Christian argument; but the only lawyers or law firms with the support to pursue any such arguments legally appear to depend on the Christian argument that loses because it is equally faith based.

2. or possibly call a TRUCE between the religious and secular camps and agree to stop ALL lawsuits and legislation over ALL issues of beliefs, and allow all of them to be endorsed and instituted through govt
including Christmas, cross and prayer references if you are going to include homosexuality and same sex marriage.

3. agree to EQUAL funding: instead of removing Planned Parenthood from govt funds, agree that dollar for dollar equal funds will go to the Nurturing Network another nonprofit to provide alternatives to women to PREVENT abortion. allow EQUAL funding and taxpayer choices of free market health care instead of restricting ACA exemptions to just insurance only and govt only. allow EQUAL funding of medical research on spiritual healing of cancer and other diseases for every dollar spent on either marijuana research or stem cell research, etc.

None of these possible solutions can even take place without first recognizing that equal beliefs were not protected by govt but violated by overreaching with these decisions that were biased by faith based beliefs.

I find it very peculiar if I am the only progressive liberal Democrat even venturing to argue that
Constitutional limits were breached.

If no other Democrats are able to see or make this argument, then something is wrong with the party, like a cult that is deliberately omitting information such as knowledge and access to spiritual healing and is basically being abused to "conspire to violate equal civil rights" by denying knowledge of the law to people.

Very strange. The Constitutional protections of people's personal beliefs is supposed to apply to ALL people,
not just defend the beliefs of party members under party platforms.

I would argue this is a form of discrimination by CREED
and where it creeps into govt and laws/rulings are made based on this discrimination by partisan CREED
that is ALSO a Constitutional violation.

My final assessment of this issue
A. the root argument about same sex marriage and orientation is a TIE
both sides are equally faith based, so govt should not be abused to favor one belief over the other.
I don't agree with using majority rule to decide this, but if people agree with
a govt decision, I will agree with that and go with that decision for that person.
If someone contests I will equally defend that person's right not to be subject to an unfair law
but to find a way to settle the dispute that both sides agree on.

B. the secondary argument that it is unconstitutional for govt to make a decision
for people that violate the beliefs of one side or the other
I WILL agree that is is a violation and that it affects both sides

C. the third level argument that discrimination is going on by partisan creed
and colluding with govt and political officials to impose biased decisions based on faith
I WILL agree this is a violation and that it affects both sides

I am NOT against people pursuing and practicing same sex marriage.

But the other two levels of violations by abusing govt and also political party to abuse govt,
YES I argue those two levels of abuses are unconstitutional and violate
the VERY principles the Democrats and liberals use for their own arguments.
So this is dangerous and damaging to people on all sides, it weakens both the
arguments for prochoice and for separation of church and state both championed by Democrats and liberals.

I find it distressing to be one of the few prochoice liberals
with knowledge of spiritual healing and willingness to point out
that the push for laws that "go too far" violate Democratic principles
of prochoice arguments against govt intruding on personal health care decisions
and of secular arguments to keep personal and collective beliefs out of govt.

Very sad! To be a minority among minorities. Flabbergasting if not frustrating.
And I am not against same sex marriage but believe it would be fully and equally protected
by keeping these decisions out of govt. Where am I going to find support for that???

Frankly, you have no right to push your religious beliefs on others and the government is forbidden to consider your religion in making laws

Your religion is under no obligation to perform same sex marriage. You can marry someone of either sex...it is your choice

Is this a great country or what

But progressives want to force people to drive Fuel efficient cars if they don't want to, extort people to buy insurance they will never need, bake cakes for people they don't want nothing to do with… Etc. lol
Land of the free? Lol

None of that has anything to do with religious freedom.

Gas guzzling cars create pollution and are bad for the environment. Poor baby, must have been pissed when you could no longer buy fully leaded gasoline or even paint your house with lead paint or let Tyson poison your chicken casserole.

It's all relative, the federal government should not be in any part of anyone's personal business.
That's just hearsay, more carbon the better. Lol

 

[HappyJoy]

Homosexuals are making the decision to get married
The federal government is merely accepting that decision

Dear rightwinger it's more than that.

If it was kept under religious freedom and all marriage was practiced in private
where only the NEUTRAL "civil custody/estate agreements" were processed through govt
then it would equal for all sides.

The problem is that benefits and naming the SOCIAL relationship between parties
is NOT agreed upon religiously. This is not just a nominal disagreement, such as
people who don't believe in celebrating Christmas or MLK day but not enough to fight it legally.

The issue of same sex marriage actually VIOLATES people's religious beliefs
similar to making Muslims eat pork or Hindus eat beef.

Three ways I imagine this can be resolved both require ACKNOWLEDGING this imposition.

1. either separate marriage and benefits by state and party and let people work it out so they
do not feel "forced by federal govt" to endorse same sex marriage through the state (which is
also a secondary VIOLATION of Constitutional beliefs that federal govt is not authorized to impose this)

NOTE: I don't disagree with same sex marriage to the same degree as Christians do who are religiously opposed, but I DO DISAGREE on the second level of violation where it is AGAINST CONSTITUTIONAL BELIEFS for federal govt especially courts to make such a decision instead of respecting citizens consent on this issue of faith based beliefs. I would argue all the way to the top if I found a lawyer who would be willing to back the CONSTITUTIONAL argument without depending on the Christian argument; but the only lawyers or law firms with the support to pursue any such arguments legally appear to depend on the Christian argument that loses because it is equally faith based.

2. or possibly call a TRUCE between the religious and secular camps and agree to stop ALL lawsuits and legislation over ALL issues of beliefs, and allow all of them to be endorsed and instituted through govt
including Christmas, cross and prayer references if you are going to include homosexuality and same sex marriage.

3. agree to EQUAL funding: instead of removing Planned Parenthood from govt funds, agree that dollar for dollar equal funds will go to the Nurturing Network another nonprofit to provide alternatives to women to PREVENT abortion. allow EQUAL funding and taxpayer choices of free market health care instead of restricting ACA exemptions to just insurance only and govt only. allow EQUAL funding of medical research on spiritual healing of cancer and other diseases for every dollar spent on either marijuana research or stem cell research, etc.

None of these possible solutions can even take place without first recognizing that equal beliefs were not protected by govt but violated by overreaching with these decisions that were biased by faith based beliefs.

I find it very peculiar if I am the only progressive liberal Democrat even venturing to argue that
Constitutional limits were breached.

If no other Democrats are able to see or make this argument, then something is wrong with the party, like a cult that is deliberately omitting information such as knowledge and access to spiritual healing and is basically being abused to "conspire to violate equal civil rights" by denying knowledge of the law to people.

Very strange. The Constitutional protections of people's personal beliefs is supposed to apply to ALL people,
not just defend the beliefs of party members under party platforms.

I would argue this is a form of discrimination by CREED
and where it creeps into govt and laws/rulings are made based on this discrimination by partisan CREED
that is ALSO a Constitutional violation.

My final assessment of this issue
A. the root argument about same sex marriage and orientation is a TIE
both sides are equally faith based, so govt should not be abused to favor one belief over the other.
I don't agree with using majority rule to decide this, but if people agree with
a govt decision, I will agree with that and go with that decision for that person.
If someone contests I will equally defend that person's right not to be subject to an unfair law
but to find a way to settle the dispute that both sides agree on.

B. the secondary argument that it is unconstitutional for govt to make a decision
for people that violate the beliefs of one side or the other
I WILL agree that is is a violation and that it affects both sides

C. the third level argument that discrimination is going on by partisan creed
and colluding with govt and political officials to impose biased decisions based on faith
I WILL agree this is a violation and that it affects both sides

I am NOT against people pursuing and practicing same sex marriage.

But the other two levels of violations by abusing govt and also political party to abuse govt,
YES I argue those two levels of abuses are unconstitutional and violate
the VERY principles the Democrats and liberals use for their own arguments.
So this is dangerous and damaging to people on all sides, it weakens both the
arguments for prochoice and for separation of church and state both championed by Democrats and liberals.

I find it distressing to be one of the few prochoice liberals
with knowledge of spiritual healing and willingness to point out
that the push for laws that "go too far" violate Democratic principles
of prochoice arguments against govt intruding on personal health care decisions
and of secular arguments to keep personal and collective beliefs out of govt.

Very sad! To be a minority among minorities. Flabbergasting if not frustrating.
And I am not against same sex marriage but believe it would be fully and equally protected
by keeping these decisions out of govt. Where am I going to find support for that???

Frankly, you have no right to push your religious beliefs on others and the government is forbidden to consider your religion in making laws

Your religion is under no obligation to perform same sex marriage. You can marry someone of either sex...it is your choice

Is this a great country or what

But progressives want to force people to drive Fuel efficient cars if they don't want to, extort people to buy insurance they will never need, bake cakes for people they don't want nothing to do with… Etc. lol
Land of the free? Lol

None of that has anything to do with religious freedom.

Gas guzzling cars create pollution and are bad for the environment. Poor baby, must have been pissed when you could no longer buy fully leaded gasoline or even paint your house with lead paint or let Tyson poison your chicken casserole.

It's all relative, the federal government should not be in any part of anyone's personal business.
That's just hearsay, more carbon the better. Lol

Actually food producers do not have the right to carelessly poison your food, I kind of like government taking a stand on that and ensuring at least some basic safety. That's not a personal issue, it's called a functioning society.

 

[Rustic]

Dear rightwinger it's more than that.

If it was kept under religious freedom and all marriage was practiced in private
where only the NEUTRAL "civil custody/estate agreements" were processed through govt
then it would equal for all sides.

The problem is that benefits and naming the SOCIAL relationship between parties
is NOT agreed upon religiously. This is not just a nominal disagreement, such as
people who don't believe in celebrating Christmas or MLK day but not enough to fight it legally.

The issue of same sex marriage actually VIOLATES people's religious beliefs
similar to making Muslims eat pork or Hindus eat beef.

Three ways I imagine this can be resolved both require ACKNOWLEDGING this imposition.

1. either separate marriage and benefits by state and party and let people work it out so they
do not feel "forced by federal govt" to endorse same sex marriage through the state (which is
also a secondary VIOLATION of Constitutional beliefs that federal govt is not authorized to impose this)

NOTE: I don't disagree with same sex marriage to the same degree as Christians do who are religiously opposed, but I DO DISAGREE on the second level of violation where it is AGAINST CONSTITUTIONAL BELIEFS for federal govt especially courts to make such a decision instead of respecting citizens consent on this issue of faith based beliefs. I would argue all the way to the top if I found a lawyer who would be willing to back the CONSTITUTIONAL argument without depending on the Christian argument; but the only lawyers or law firms with the support to pursue any such arguments legally appear to depend on the Christian argument that loses because it is equally faith based.

2. or possibly call a TRUCE between the religious and secular camps and agree to stop ALL lawsuits and legislation over ALL issues of beliefs, and allow all of them to be endorsed and instituted through govt
including Christmas, cross and prayer references if you are going to include homosexuality and same sex marriage.

3. agree to EQUAL funding: instead of removing Planned Parenthood from govt funds, agree that dollar for dollar equal funds will go to the Nurturing Network another nonprofit to provide alternatives to women to PREVENT abortion. allow EQUAL funding and taxpayer choices of free market health care instead of restricting ACA exemptions to just insurance only and govt only. allow EQUAL funding of medical research on spiritual healing of cancer and other diseases for every dollar spent on either marijuana research or stem cell research, etc.

None of these possible solutions can even take place without first recognizing that equal beliefs were not protected by govt but violated by overreaching with these decisions that were biased by faith based beliefs.

I find it very peculiar if I am the only progressive liberal Democrat even venturing to argue that
Constitutional limits were breached.

If no other Democrats are able to see or make this argument, then something is wrong with the party, like a cult that is deliberately omitting information such as knowledge and access to spiritual healing and is basically being abused to "conspire to violate equal civil rights" by denying knowledge of the law to people.

Very strange. The Constitutional protections of people's personal beliefs is supposed to apply to ALL people,
not just defend the beliefs of party members under party platforms.

I would argue this is a form of discrimination by CREED
and where it creeps into govt and laws/rulings are made based on this discrimination by partisan CREED
that is ALSO a Constitutional violation.

My final assessment of this issue
A. the root argument about same sex marriage and orientation is a TIE
both sides are equally faith based, so govt should not be abused to favor one belief over the other.
I don't agree with using majority rule to decide this, but if people agree with
a govt decision, I will agree with that and go with that decision for that person.
If someone contests I will equally defend that person's right not to be subject to an unfair law
but to find a way to settle the dispute that both sides agree on.

B. the secondary argument that it is unconstitutional for govt to make a decision
for people that violate the beliefs of one side or the other
I WILL agree that is is a violation and that it affects both sides

C. the third level argument that discrimination is going on by partisan creed
and colluding with govt and political officials to impose biased decisions based on faith
I WILL agree this is a violation and that it affects both sides

I am NOT against people pursuing and practicing same sex marriage.

But the other two levels of violations by abusing govt and also political party to abuse govt,
YES I argue those two levels of abuses are unconstitutional and violate
the VERY principles the Democrats and liberals use for their own arguments.
So this is dangerous and damaging to people on all sides, it weakens both the
arguments for prochoice and for separation of church and state both championed by Democrats and liberals.

I find it distressing to be one of the few prochoice liberals
with knowledge of spiritual healing and willingness to point out
that the push for laws that "go too far" violate Democratic principles
of prochoice arguments against govt intruding on personal health care decisions
and of secular arguments to keep personal and collective beliefs out of govt.

Very sad! To be a minority among minorities. Flabbergasting if not frustrating.
And I am not against same sex marriage but believe it would be fully and equally protected
by keeping these decisions out of govt. Where am I going to find support for that???

Frankly, you have no right to push your religious beliefs on others and the government is forbidden to consider your religion in making laws

Your religion is under no obligation to perform same sex marriage. You can marry someone of either sex...it is your choice

Is this a great country or what

But progressives want to force people to drive Fuel efficient cars if they don't want to, extort people to buy insurance they will never need, bake cakes for people they don't want nothing to do with… Etc. lol
Land of the free? Lol

None of that has anything to do with religious freedom.

Gas guzzling cars create pollution and are bad for the environment. Poor baby, must have been pissed when you could no longer buy fully leaded gasoline or even paint your house with lead paint or let Tyson poison your chicken casserole.

It's all relative, the federal government should not be in any part of anyone's personal business.
That's just hearsay, more carbon the better. Lol

Actually food producers do not have the right to carelessly poison your food, I kind of like government taking a stand on that and ensuring at least some basic safety. That's not a personal issue, it's called a functioning society.

Actually,I shoot and grow the vast majority of the food my family consumes... It's much more responsible than paying someone else to kill and grow for us.... Lol

 

[emilynghiem]

Homosexuals are making the decision to get married
The federal government is merely accepting that decision

Dear rightwinger it's more than that.

If it was kept under religious freedom and all marriage was practiced in private
where only the NEUTRAL "civil custody/estate agreements" were processed through govt
then it would equal for all sides.

The problem is that benefits and naming the SOCIAL relationship between parties
is NOT agreed upon religiously. This is not just a nominal disagreement, such as
people who don't believe in celebrating Christmas or MLK day but not enough to fight it legally.

The issue of same sex marriage actually VIOLATES people's religious beliefs
similar to making Muslims eat pork or Hindus eat beef.

Three ways I imagine this can be resolved both require ACKNOWLEDGING this imposition.

1. either separate marriage and benefits by state and party and let people work it out so they
do not feel "forced by federal govt" to endorse same sex marriage through the state (which is
also a secondary VIOLATION of Constitutional beliefs that federal govt is not authorized to impose this)

NOTE: I don't disagree with same sex marriage to the same degree as Christians do who are religiously opposed, but I DO DISAGREE on the second level of violation where it is AGAINST CONSTITUTIONAL BELIEFS for federal govt especially courts to make such a decision instead of respecting citizens consent on this issue of faith based beliefs. I would argue all the way to the top if I found a lawyer who would be willing to back the CONSTITUTIONAL argument without depending on the Christian argument; but the only lawyers or law firms with the support to pursue any such arguments legally appear to depend on the Christian argument that loses because it is equally faith based.

2. or possibly call a TRUCE between the religious and secular camps and agree to stop ALL lawsuits and legislation over ALL issues of beliefs, and allow all of them to be endorsed and instituted through govt
including Christmas, cross and prayer references if you are going to include homosexuality and same sex marriage.

3. agree to EQUAL funding: instead of removing Planned Parenthood from govt funds, agree that dollar for dollar equal funds will go to the Nurturing Network another nonprofit to provide alternatives to women to PREVENT abortion. allow EQUAL funding and taxpayer choices of free market health care instead of restricting ACA exemptions to just insurance only and govt only. allow EQUAL funding of medical research on spiritual healing of cancer and other diseases for every dollar spent on either marijuana research or stem cell research, etc.

None of these possible solutions can even take place without first recognizing that equal beliefs were not protected by govt but violated by overreaching with these decisions that were biased by faith based beliefs.

I find it very peculiar if I am the only progressive liberal Democrat even venturing to argue that
Constitutional limits were breached.

If no other Democrats are able to see or make this argument, then something is wrong with the party, like a cult that is deliberately omitting information such as knowledge and access to spiritual healing and is basically being abused to "conspire to violate equal civil rights" by denying knowledge of the law to people.

Very strange. The Constitutional protections of people's personal beliefs is supposed to apply to ALL people,
not just defend the beliefs of party members under party platforms.

I would argue this is a form of discrimination by CREED
and where it creeps into govt and laws/rulings are made based on this discrimination by partisan CREED
that is ALSO a Constitutional violation.

My final assessment of this issue
A. the root argument about same sex marriage and orientation is a TIE
both sides are equally faith based, so govt should not be abused to favor one belief over the other.
I don't agree with using majority rule to decide this, but if people agree with
a govt decision, I will agree with that and go with that decision for that person.
If someone contests I will equally defend that person's right not to be subject to an unfair law
but to find a way to settle the dispute that both sides agree on.

B. the secondary argument that it is unconstitutional for govt to make a decision
for people that violate the beliefs of one side or the other
I WILL agree that is is a violation and that it affects both sides

C. the third level argument that discrimination is going on by partisan creed
and colluding with govt and political officials to impose biased decisions based on faith
I WILL agree this is a violation and that it affects both sides

I am NOT against people pursuing and practicing same sex marriage.

But the other two levels of violations by abusing govt and also political party to abuse govt,
YES I argue those two levels of abuses are unconstitutional and violate
the VERY principles the Democrats and liberals use for their own arguments.
So this is dangerous and damaging to people on all sides, it weakens both the
arguments for prochoice and for separation of church and state both championed by Democrats and liberals.

I find it distressing to be one of the few prochoice liberals
with knowledge of spiritual healing and willingness to point out
that the push for laws that "go too far" violate Democratic principles
of prochoice arguments against govt intruding on personal health care decisions
and of secular arguments to keep personal and collective beliefs out of govt.

Very sad! To be a minority among minorities. Flabbergasting if not frustrating.
And I am not against same sex marriage but believe it would be fully and equally protected
by keeping these decisions out of govt. Where am I going to find support for that???

Frankly, you have no right to push your religious beliefs on others and the government is forbidden to consider your religion in making laws

Your religion is under no obligation to perform same sex marriage. You can marry someone of either sex...it is your choice

Is this a great country or what

But progressives want to force people to drive Fuel efficient cars if they don't want to, extort people to buy insurance they will never need, bake cakes for people they don't want nothing to do with… Etc. lol
Land of the free? Lol

None of that has anything to do with religious freedom.

Gas guzzling cars create pollution and are bad for the environment. Poor baby, must have been pissed when you could no longer buy fully leaded gasoline or even paint your house with lead paint or let Tyson poison your chicken casserole.

Dear HappyJoy
1. What did I say to make this huge leap about environmental issues?

I believe in defending the far left arguments by environmental researchers who can prove where toxins have infiltrated areas and are causing hazard and damage.

I believe in the right to petition and to redress these grievances,
and it is unconstitutional to censor this for corporate convenience and conflicts of interest.

My whole website for the Houston Progressive was built on two main issues of corporate corruption and abuse of government - saving Freedmen's Town as a national historic site
and saving the Headwaters Redwood forest, endangered species and ecosystems from destruction
for corporate profit at taxpayer expense.

Where have you been when I've been trumpeting these causes since I started that site in 1997?

What makes you think I'm not for environmental preservation, protection and conservation?
I've even been yelling at my fellow liberals and progressives to focus on this and stop
pushing global warming as the only way to make the argument that fails when it falls on deaf ears!

If we banded together on restoration efforts, that create jobs and pay for education by solving
problems caused by corporate pollution, the conservatives wouldn't argue with that.

It's how you frame the argument that can make all the difference.
As many liberal as conservative groups joined the rally to save the redwoods which was a unifying theme,
of corporate responsibility that nobody disagreed with. The conservatives don't want corporations buying out politics and living off taxpaid welfare either.

They just pick on different corporations they protest than the liberals will target for political popularity and publicity. If we banded together, we'd stop all corporate corruption and abuse of tax money to cover up.

There have been efforts to unite the left and right on this issue, from Nader and Ron Paul recognizing the common issue of Progressives and Libertarians is getting rid of the corporate corruption, to even Obama's cousin calling for Occupy and Tea Party activists to band together on common causes.

There are RIGHT ways to argue for environmental protections that don't "piss off conservatives."
If anything I am more sympathetic with the leftwing environmentalists who aren't being heard
because the Democrat politics "bought out the Green vote" and corrupted it instead of solving the problems.

I found the same way the universal care vote was hijacked for politics, the peace vote, the black vote, the women's vote, etc. was played for political power without actually solving the root problem and achieving the goals, the same happens with the environmental issues. The liberal politicians fail to make the arguments in ways that conservatives can support. What was sad, was there WAS a successful effort in Texas where reps from both parties passed a bill concerning the water supply, and the Governor still vetoed it, when it had support of both parties! So we need to do a better job of getting that partisan obstruction out of the way of passing good legislation that all sides actual agree on.

2. Why are you assuming that people's beliefs about homosexuality are not a key issue here?
On both sides, mind you.

There are also people who BELIEVE RELIGIOUSLY that homosexuality is a born condition and not a choice.
There are people who BELIEVE it is discrimination and unfair not to let a transgender person use the restroom of their choice, to the point they BELIEVE it is legally necessary to pass ORDINANCES DEFENDING THIS.

If I am going to respect the BELIEFS of some people, regardless if they are affiliated with an organized group or not, isn't it only fair to respect the BELIEFS of all people, regardless if they are affiliated with an organized group or not?

If people have to "belong to a certain class of people" in order to defend their beliefs,
isn't that a form of DISCRIMINATION by affiliation? Where people are not equal?

Why shouldn't the beliefs of atheists count equally as beliefs of people in an established religious group?

NOTE: Defending someone's right to their beliefs is NOT the same as taking their side and ramming it through govt. If other beliefs are in conflict, shouldn't laws passed by govt have to respect protect and represent all people of all beliefs equally? That is how I understand Constitutional equal protections of law.

I intend to include people of all beliefs, and seek mediation and consensus on policy to prevent infringement.

 

[emilynghiem]

"However, I believe the prolife BELIEFS should be equally respected, protected and represented by law."

And those beliefs are.

Citizens are at liberty to believe whatever they so desire – to believe life and ‘personhood’ begins at conception, and act in accordance with those beliefs concerning their own personal lives, and to advocate for their beliefs in the context of private society.

As a fact of settled, accepted Constitutional law, however, government may not seek to compel a woman to give birth against her will through force of law.

It’s important to understand that the 14th Amendment jurisprudence which prohibits government from violating the privacy rights of women applies solely to government, not private persons or originations.

Consequently, privacy rights jurisprudence safeguards the beliefs of those on both side of the issue, protecting the rights of choice, free expression, and self-determination, free from unwarranted interference by the state.

Dear C_Clayton_Jones

What if we based people's protection of the laws based on what their OPPONENTS BELIEVED is good enough?

So if conservatives believe that same sex partners already HAVE THE RIGHT TO GET MARRIED,
such as by marrying another same sex couple, where they pair up as two heteresexual couples and share the benefits that way,
then that should be good enough?

Since when would YOU allow the govt to use the CRITERIA OF YOUR OPPONENTS
who disagree with YOUR BELIEFS to decide what is equal exercise of your beliefs?

I would never consider that consent unless the person consented to it.

What kind of consent of the governed do you believe in, C_Clayton_Jones

I don't believe in manufacturing by political convenience and coercion.

I believe consent by definition should be freely given by the person whose rights, freedoms
interests and beliefs are at stake. If that person says "I still have grievances and objections
I want to address" I BELIEVE THAT PERSON and defend their right to democratic due process.

I am not going to censor anyone just because I BELIEVE differently than they do.

You can argue for YOURSELF if YOU BELIEVE your rights are or are not included and protected.

But for issues of prolife and free market health care, and proponents of traditional marriage,
I will go by their grievances and make sure those are addressed.

Otherwise how can I argue when it comes to the left making arguments?
You know that the rightwing does not believe any "choice" is taken away by banning abortion
because THEY believe abortion is murder, so abortion is not a choice anyway.

So banning abortion doesn't take away any legal choices!

C_Clayton_Jones would you take the rightwing argument
and impose that on the leftwing just because the rightwing
"doesn't believe any rights or freedoms are lost by banning abortion"?

Really? Let's be honest and fair on this.

 

[HappyJoy]

Homosexuals are making the decision to get married
The federal government is merely accepting that decision

Dear rightwinger it's more than that.

If it was kept under religious freedom and all marriage was practiced in private
where only the NEUTRAL "civil custody/estate agreements" were processed through govt
then it would equal for all sides.

The problem is that benefits and naming the SOCIAL relationship between parties
is NOT agreed upon religiously. This is not just a nominal disagreement, such as
people who don't believe in celebrating Christmas or MLK day but not enough to fight it legally.

The issue of same sex marriage actually VIOLATES people's religious beliefs
similar to making Muslims eat pork or Hindus eat beef.

Three ways I imagine this can be resolved both require ACKNOWLEDGING this imposition.

1. either separate marriage and benefits by state and party and let people work it out so they
do not feel "forced by federal govt" to endorse same sex marriage through the state (which is
also a secondary VIOLATION of Constitutional beliefs that federal govt is not authorized to impose this)

NOTE: I don't disagree with same sex marriage to the same degree as Christians do who are religiously opposed, but I DO DISAGREE on the second level of violation where it is AGAINST CONSTITUTIONAL BELIEFS for federal govt especially courts to make such a decision instead of respecting citizens consent on this issue of faith based beliefs. I would argue all the way to the top if I found a lawyer who would be willing to back the CONSTITUTIONAL argument without depending on the Christian argument; but the only lawyers or law firms with the support to pursue any such arguments legally appear to depend on the Christian argument that loses because it is equally faith based.

2. or possibly call a TRUCE between the religious and secular camps and agree to stop ALL lawsuits and legislation over ALL issues of beliefs, and allow all of them to be endorsed and instituted through govt
including Christmas, cross and prayer references if you are going to include homosexuality and same sex marriage.

3. agree to EQUAL funding: instead of removing Planned Parenthood from govt funds, agree that dollar for dollar equal funds will go to the Nurturing Network another nonprofit to provide alternatives to women to PREVENT abortion. allow EQUAL funding and taxpayer choices of free market health care instead of restricting ACA exemptions to just insurance only and govt only. allow EQUAL funding of medical research on spiritual healing of cancer and other diseases for every dollar spent on either marijuana research or stem cell research, etc.

None of these possible solutions can even take place without first recognizing that equal beliefs were not protected by govt but violated by overreaching with these decisions that were biased by faith based beliefs.

I find it very peculiar if I am the only progressive liberal Democrat even venturing to argue that
Constitutional limits were breached.

If no other Democrats are able to see or make this argument, then something is wrong with the party, like a cult that is deliberately omitting information such as knowledge and access to spiritual healing and is basically being abused to "conspire to violate equal civil rights" by denying knowledge of the law to people.

Very strange. The Constitutional protections of people's personal beliefs is supposed to apply to ALL people,
not just defend the beliefs of party members under party platforms.

I would argue this is a form of discrimination by CREED
and where it creeps into govt and laws/rulings are made based on this discrimination by partisan CREED
that is ALSO a Constitutional violation.

My final assessment of this issue
A. the root argument about same sex marriage and orientation is a TIE
both sides are equally faith based, so govt should not be abused to favor one belief over the other.
I don't agree with using majority rule to decide this, but if people agree with
a govt decision, I will agree with that and go with that decision for that person.
If someone contests I will equally defend that person's right not to be subject to an unfair law
but to find a way to settle the dispute that both sides agree on.

B. the secondary argument that it is unconstitutional for govt to make a decision
for people that violate the beliefs of one side or the other
I WILL agree that is is a violation and that it affects both sides

C. the third level argument that discrimination is going on by partisan creed
and colluding with govt and political officials to impose biased decisions based on faith
I WILL agree this is a violation and that it affects both sides

I am NOT against people pursuing and practicing same sex marriage.

But the other two levels of violations by abusing govt and also political party to abuse govt,
YES I argue those two levels of abuses are unconstitutional and violate
the VERY principles the Democrats and liberals use for their own arguments.
So this is dangerous and damaging to people on all sides, it weakens both the
arguments for prochoice and for separation of church and state both championed by Democrats and liberals.

I find it distressing to be one of the few prochoice liberals
with knowledge of spiritual healing and willingness to point out
that the push for laws that "go too far" violate Democratic principles
of prochoice arguments against govt intruding on personal health care decisions
and of secular arguments to keep personal and collective beliefs out of govt.

Very sad! To be a minority among minorities. Flabbergasting if not frustrating.
And I am not against same sex marriage but believe it would be fully and equally protected
by keeping these decisions out of govt. Where am I going to find support for that???

Frankly, you have no right to push your religious beliefs on others and the government is forbidden to consider your religion in making laws

Your religion is under no obligation to perform same sex marriage. You can marry someone of either sex...it is your choice

Is this a great country or what

But progressives want to force people to drive Fuel efficient cars if they don't want to, extort people to buy insurance they will never need, bake cakes for people they don't want nothing to do with… Etc. lol
Land of the free? Lol

None of that has anything to do with religious freedom.

Gas guzzling cars create pollution and are bad for the environment. Poor baby, must have been pissed when you could no longer buy fully leaded gasoline or even paint your house with lead paint or let Tyson poison your chicken casserole.

Dear HappyJoy
1. What did I say to make this huge leap about environmental issues?

I believe in defending the far left arguments by environmental researchers who can prove where toxins have infiltrated areas and are causing hazard and damage.

I believe in the right to petition and to redress these grievances,
and it is unconstitutional to censor this for corporate convenience and conflicts of interest.

My whole website for the Houston Progressive was built on two main issues of corporate corruption and abuse of government - saving Freedmen's Town as a national historic site
and saving the Headwaters Redwood forest, endangered species and ecosystems from destruction
for corporate profit at taxpayer expense.

Where have you been when I've been trumpeting these causes since I started that site in 1997?

What makes you think I'm not for environmental preservation, protection and conservation?
I've even been yelling at my fellow liberals and progressives to focus on this and stop
pushing global warming as the only way to make the argument that fails when it falls on deaf ears!

If we banded together on restoration efforts, that create jobs and pay for education by solving
problems caused by corporate pollution, the conservatives wouldn't argue with that.

It's how you frame the argument that can make all the difference.
As many liberal as conservative groups joined the rally to save the redwoods which was a unifying theme,
of corporate responsibility that nobody disagreed with. The conservatives don't want corporations buying out politics and living off taxpaid welfare either.

They just pick on different corporations they protest than the liberals will target for political popularity and publicity. If we banded together, we'd stop all corporate corruption and abuse of tax money to cover up.

There have been efforts to unite the left and right on this issue, from Nader and Ron Paul recognizing the common issue of Progressives and Libertarians is getting rid of the corporate corruption, to even Obama's cousin calling for Occupy and Tea Party activists to band together on common causes.

There are RIGHT ways to argue for environmental protections that don't "piss off conservatives."
If anything I am more sympathetic with the leftwing environmentalists who aren't being heard
because the Democrat politics "bought out the Green vote" and corrupted it instead of solving the problems.

I found the same way the universal care vote was hijacked for politics, the peace vote, the black vote, the women's vote, etc. was played for political power without actually solving the root problem and achieving the goals, the same happens with the environmental issues. The liberal politicians fail to make the arguments in ways that conservatives can support. What was sad, was there WAS a successful effort in Texas where reps from both parties passed a bill concerning the water supply, and the Governor still vetoed it, when it had support of both parties! So we need to do a better job of getting that partisan obstruction out of the way of passing good legislation that all sides actual agree on.

2. Why are you assuming that people's beliefs about homosexuality are not a key issue here?
On both sides, mind you.

There are also people who BELIEVE RELIGIOUSLY that homosexuality is a born condition and not a choice.
There are people who BELIEVE it is discrimination and unfair not to let a transgender person use the restroom of their choice, to the point they BELIEVE it is legally necessary to pass ORDINANCES DEFENDING THIS.

If I am going to respect the BELIEFS of some people, regardless if they are affiliated with an organized group or not, isn't it only fair to respect the BELIEFS of all people, regardless if they are affiliated with an organized group or not?

If people have to "belong to a certain class of people" in order to defend their beliefs,
isn't that a form of DISCRIMINATION by affiliation? Where people are not equal?

Why shouldn't the beliefs of atheists count equally as beliefs of people in an established religious group?

NOTE: Defending someone's right to their beliefs is NOT the same as taking their side and ramming it through govt. If other beliefs are in conflict, shouldn't laws passed by govt have to respect protect and represent all people of all beliefs equally? That is how I understand Constitutional equal protections of law.

I intend to include people of all beliefs, and seek mediation and consensus on policy to prevent infringement.

I didn't bring up "environmental issues" look a the post I replied to.

Other than your post draining my soul of the will to live (wrap it up!) I'm confused by your entire premise.

You're against gay marriage because not everyone is for it. Who is 100% for anything? You want to take government out of the picture if there isn't 100% agreement? Good fucking luck with that.

You have the right to get married or not with the partner of your choosing, what's wrong with that? Why does the entire country have to agree with it?

You want the government to get out of marriage when the benefit of a civil marriage all comes from government. Survivership rights, property ownership and social security benefits. A civil marriage in the eyes of the government isn't about some flowerty reception and endorsement of the relationship, it's an establishment of a legal contract with your spouse, what the couple chooses to do to make it special, whether getting the endorsement of a church, or saying their vows in front of witnesses or blowing each other in a 7/11 parking lot is up to them. Stay out of it.

 

[WorldWatcher]

>

Dear Emily,

Your posts are to long to bother reading. I would suggest brevity over rambling.

God Bless...

WW

>>>>

 

[emilynghiem]

Dear rightwinger it's more than that.

If it was kept under religious freedom and all marriage was practiced in private
where only the NEUTRAL "civil custody/estate agreements" were processed through govt
then it would equal for all sides.

The problem is that benefits and naming the SOCIAL relationship between parties
is NOT agreed upon religiously. This is not just a nominal disagreement, such as
people who don't believe in celebrating Christmas or MLK day but not enough to fight it legally.

The issue of same sex marriage actually VIOLATES people's religious beliefs
similar to making Muslims eat pork or Hindus eat beef.

Three ways I imagine this can be resolved both require ACKNOWLEDGING this imposition.

1. either separate marriage and benefits by state and party and let people work it out so they
do not feel "forced by federal govt" to endorse same sex marriage through the state (which is
also a secondary VIOLATION of Constitutional beliefs that federal govt is not authorized to impose this)

NOTE: I don't disagree with same sex marriage to the same degree as Christians do who are religiously opposed, but I DO DISAGREE on the second level of violation where it is AGAINST CONSTITUTIONAL BELIEFS for federal govt especially courts to make such a decision instead of respecting citizens consent on this issue of faith based beliefs. I would argue all the way to the top if I found a lawyer who would be willing to back the CONSTITUTIONAL argument without depending on the Christian argument; but the only lawyers or law firms with the support to pursue any such arguments legally appear to depend on the Christian argument that loses because it is equally faith based.

2. or possibly call a TRUCE between the religious and secular camps and agree to stop ALL lawsuits and legislation over ALL issues of beliefs, and allow all of them to be endorsed and instituted through govt
including Christmas, cross and prayer references if you are going to include homosexuality and same sex marriage.

3. agree to EQUAL funding: instead of removing Planned Parenthood from govt funds, agree that dollar for dollar equal funds will go to the Nurturing Network another nonprofit to provide alternatives to women to PREVENT abortion. allow EQUAL funding and taxpayer choices of free market health care instead of restricting ACA exemptions to just insurance only and govt only. allow EQUAL funding of medical research on spiritual healing of cancer and other diseases for every dollar spent on either marijuana research or stem cell research, etc.

None of these possible solutions can even take place without first recognizing that equal beliefs were not protected by govt but violated by overreaching with these decisions that were biased by faith based beliefs.

I find it very peculiar if I am the only progressive liberal Democrat even venturing to argue that
Constitutional limits were breached.

If no other Democrats are able to see or make this argument, then something is wrong with the party, like a cult that is deliberately omitting information such as knowledge and access to spiritual healing and is basically being abused to "conspire to violate equal civil rights" by denying knowledge of the law to people.

Very strange. The Constitutional protections of people's personal beliefs is supposed to apply to ALL people,
not just defend the beliefs of party members under party platforms.

I would argue this is a form of discrimination by CREED
and where it creeps into govt and laws/rulings are made based on this discrimination by partisan CREED
that is ALSO a Constitutional violation.

My final assessment of this issue
A. the root argument about same sex marriage and orientation is a TIE
both sides are equally faith based, so govt should not be abused to favor one belief over the other.
I don't agree with using majority rule to decide this, but if people agree with
a govt decision, I will agree with that and go with that decision for that person.
If someone contests I will equally defend that person's right not to be subject to an unfair law
but to find a way to settle the dispute that both sides agree on.

B. the secondary argument that it is unconstitutional for govt to make a decision
for people that violate the beliefs of one side or the other
I WILL agree that is is a violation and that it affects both sides

C. the third level argument that discrimination is going on by partisan creed
and colluding with govt and political officials to impose biased decisions based on faith
I WILL agree this is a violation and that it affects both sides

I am NOT against people pursuing and practicing same sex marriage.

But the other two levels of violations by abusing govt and also political party to abuse govt,
YES I argue those two levels of abuses are unconstitutional and violate
the VERY principles the Democrats and liberals use for their own arguments.
So this is dangerous and damaging to people on all sides, it weakens both the
arguments for prochoice and for separation of church and state both championed by Democrats and liberals.

I find it distressing to be one of the few prochoice liberals
with knowledge of spiritual healing and willingness to point out
that the push for laws that "go too far" violate Democratic principles
of prochoice arguments against govt intruding on personal health care decisions
and of secular arguments to keep personal and collective beliefs out of govt.

Very sad! To be a minority among minorities. Flabbergasting if not frustrating.
And I am not against same sex marriage but believe it would be fully and equally protected
by keeping these decisions out of govt. Where am I going to find support for that???

Frankly, you have no right to push your religious beliefs on others and the government is forbidden to consider your religion in making laws

Your religion is under no obligation to perform same sex marriage. You can marry someone of either sex...it is your choice

Is this a great country or what

But progressives want to force people to drive Fuel efficient cars if they don't want to, extort people to buy insurance they will never need, bake cakes for people they don't want nothing to do with… Etc. lol
Land of the free? Lol

None of that has anything to do with religious freedom.

Gas guzzling cars create pollution and are bad for the environment. Poor baby, must have been pissed when you could no longer buy fully leaded gasoline or even paint your house with lead paint or let Tyson poison your chicken casserole.

Dear HappyJoy
1. What did I say to make this huge leap about environmental issues?

I believe in defending the far left arguments by environmental researchers who can prove where toxins have infiltrated areas and are causing hazard and damage.

I believe in the right to petition and to redress these grievances,
and it is unconstitutional to censor this for corporate convenience and conflicts of interest.

My whole website for the Houston Progressive was built on two main issues of corporate corruption and abuse of government - saving Freedmen's Town as a national historic site
and saving the Headwaters Redwood forest, endangered species and ecosystems from destruction
for corporate profit at taxpayer expense.

Where have you been when I've been trumpeting these causes since I started that site in 1997?

What makes you think I'm not for environmental preservation, protection and conservation?
I've even been yelling at my fellow liberals and progressives to focus on this and stop
pushing global warming as the only way to make the argument that fails when it falls on deaf ears!

If we banded together on restoration efforts, that create jobs and pay for education by solving
problems caused by corporate pollution, the conservatives wouldn't argue with that.

It's how you frame the argument that can make all the difference.
As many liberal as conservative groups joined the rally to save the redwoods which was a unifying theme,
of corporate responsibility that nobody disagreed with. The conservatives don't want corporations buying out politics and living off taxpaid welfare either.

They just pick on different corporations they protest than the liberals will target for political popularity and publicity. If we banded together, we'd stop all corporate corruption and abuse of tax money to cover up.

There have been efforts to unite the left and right on this issue, from Nader and Ron Paul recognizing the common issue of Progressives and Libertarians is getting rid of the corporate corruption, to even Obama's cousin calling for Occupy and Tea Party activists to band together on common causes.

There are RIGHT ways to argue for environmental protections that don't "piss off conservatives."
If anything I am more sympathetic with the leftwing environmentalists who aren't being heard
because the Democrat politics "bought out the Green vote" and corrupted it instead of solving the problems.

I found the same way the universal care vote was hijacked for politics, the peace vote, the black vote, the women's vote, etc. was played for political power without actually solving the root problem and achieving the goals, the same happens with the environmental issues. The liberal politicians fail to make the arguments in ways that conservatives can support. What was sad, was there WAS a successful effort in Texas where reps from both parties passed a bill concerning the water supply, and the Governor still vetoed it, when it had support of both parties! So we need to do a better job of getting that partisan obstruction out of the way of passing good legislation that all sides actual agree on.

2. Why are you assuming that people's beliefs about homosexuality are not a key issue here?
On both sides, mind you.

There are also people who BELIEVE RELIGIOUSLY that homosexuality is a born condition and not a choice.
There are people who BELIEVE it is discrimination and unfair not to let a transgender person use the restroom of their choice, to the point they BELIEVE it is legally necessary to pass ORDINANCES DEFENDING THIS.

If I am going to respect the BELIEFS of some people, regardless if they are affiliated with an organized group or not, isn't it only fair to respect the BELIEFS of all people, regardless if they are affiliated with an organized group or not?

If people have to "belong to a certain class of people" in order to defend their beliefs,
isn't that a form of DISCRIMINATION by affiliation? Where people are not equal?

Why shouldn't the beliefs of atheists count equally as beliefs of people in an established religious group?

NOTE: Defending someone's right to their beliefs is NOT the same as taking their side and ramming it through govt. If other beliefs are in conflict, shouldn't laws passed by govt have to respect protect and represent all people of all beliefs equally? That is how I understand Constitutional equal protections of law.

I intend to include people of all beliefs, and seek mediation and consensus on policy to prevent infringement.

I didn't bring up "environmental issues" look a the post I replied to.

Other than your post draining my soul of the will to live (wrap it up!) I'm confused by your entire premise.

You're against gay marriage because not everyone is for it. Who is 100% for anything? You want to take government out of the picture if there isn't 100% agreement? Good fucking luck with that.

You have the right to get married or not with the partner of your choosing, what's wrong with that? Why does the entire country have to agree with it?

You want the government to get out of marriage when the benefit of a civil marriage all comes from government. Survivership rights, property ownership and social security benefits. A civil marriage in the eyes of the government isn't about some flowerty reception and endorsement of the relationship, it's an establishment of a legal contract with your spouse, what the couple chooses to do to make it special, whether getting the endorsement of a church, or saying their vows in front of witnesses or blowing each other in a 7/11 parking lot is up to them. Stay out of it.

NO HappyJoy I am NOT against Gay Marriage any more than I'm against Christianity,
Christmas, the choice of abortion not being criminalized, the choice of the death penalty not being banned, etc.

I support gay marriage as a part of equal exercise of religion that no govt can regulate much less ban someone from participating in!
You must be equally new this concept that a prochoice progressvie Democrat who support gay rights
still supports the Constitutional limits on govt not to make faith based decisions for people that ought to remain a free choice.

What I am against is the FEDERAL GOVT legislating in matters of belief such as
* same sex marriage which is a faith based matter, whether we support it or oppose it, both beliefs being equally faith based
(as is marriage unless you make it neutral as "civil unions" with no specification at all on
what the required relationship is between two people seeking joint ownership of an estate or joint custody etc.)
==> UNLESS the PEOPLE CONSENT to the policy established by govt, then it's legal to
celebrate Christmas or include creation/evolution and whatever sex education people AGREE to have in public institutions.
And to have whatever marriage laws that the public AGREES to establish/institute through the state.

If people Don't agree, then the laws should be rewritten to remove the bias and/or remove the policy altogether and keep it private.

Where the matters concern FAITH BASED BELIEFS then it is up to the consent of the people
whether we recognize Christmas, reject God or marriage as a biased term, whether we
recognize Ramadan or whatever, traditional marriage or whatever marriage.

If people CONSENT then it's okay for faith based issues to be established through govt.

other examples:
* the Death Penalty brings up beliefs both for and against; again if people cannot agree on a policy, then either
separate the funding where people whose beliefs would be violated are NOT required to fund it but can fund alternatives
and also agree on a standard, such as consensus decisions, if the death penalty is going to be applied so it proven to be consented to by the parties affected in a case.

* the concept of JUSTICE and Equal Justice Under Law
is FAITH BASED, never proven to exist, yet people AGREE to use the term JUSTICE
We may not agree to use the terms JESUS, or GOD, but we do agree on terms such as JUSTICE and "public good"

so the ultimate criteria when it comes to faith based beliefs and issues is CONSENT of the people.
So if people do not consent, they cannot be forced to compromise, change or be punished for their beliefs by govt.

* both the Right to Life and Right to Health care are
POLITICAL BELIEFS that not all people believe in and these are not proven to
be necessary to legislate through govt in order to protect these beliefs;
so these should also remain up to the free choice and consent of people
whether to believe these are rights or not instead of pushing faith-based policies through govt.

HappyJoy I'm all for people giving freely to charities, and going through church programs
and spiritual healing therapy to help cure the root problems of mental illness and homelessness.

Just because I am FOR these things does not mean I would ever FORCE them onto the public
to fund as a requirement where these are FAITH BASED programs.

Only if people CONSENT, of course I support that.

Same with Christianity and homosexuality and whatever else people accept or reject on faith.
Those are faith based decisions that belong to the individual PEOPLE
and not for the GOVT to legislate for the public.

HappyJoy I equally oppose the bills BANNING gay marriage because that is unconstitutional for the same reasons.

Are you able to understand that the same criteria that makes it unconstitutional
to abridge the religious freedom to support gay marriage also makes it
unconstitutional to ESTABLISH this through govt?

The First Amendment goes both ways.

Christianity can neither be discriminated against nor established by govt.
Why can't beliefs about homosexuality be treated the same way, NEUTRALLY,
and neither discriminated against NOR established by govt since these are FAITH BASED.

That's my issue that I believe people are missing.

It's like the liberals who complain so much about Christians pushing their beliefs through govt,
as not a choice but just "the truth" that everyone should respect as law,
are put in the same shoes now and pushing belief-based arguments and agenda
in the very same manner that Christians have been condemned for doing by "separation of church and state."

The tables have turned.

Now the Christians are making the argument to "separate beliefs from govt" that liberals used to make,
and liberals are arguing that "more good would be done" or "more lives saved" or "justice served"
by pushing faith-based agenda through govt instead of respecting "free choice" of people who believe otherwise, and
whose beliefs are even violated by those policies!

Where is the same consideration for Christians who don't believe in homosexuality and gay marriage
as for Atheists who don't believe in references to God, the Cross, prayer, the Bible, etc.

All I'm asking is for people of either secular or religious beliefs to be treated with the same respect by law:
either allow ALL beliefs out of diversity and inclusion, or if you are going to start REMOVING beliefs
from public policy (such as right to life, references to Christ or Christianity) then listen to ALL objections
and allow other faith-based beliefs to be removed if people don't share that belief or their beliefs are violated
(such as right to health care through govt, references to homosexuality or gay marriage in public institutions), etc.

Otherwise it is discrimination by creed to allow Atheists to remove Christian references
but turn around and force homosexual references onto Christians who oppose for similar reasons!

How hard is that to understand?
Is it really? Compared with Atheists who don't want Christianity pushed through govt
but don't mind it practiced in private?

Do you see the similarity at all here?
Why not uphold the same standards for all people regardless of their beliefs?