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

[Syriusly]

[QU
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."
?

Sigh.

How is it discrimination to remove references of Christianity and all other religions from public spaces?

Frankly your 'argument' is nonsensical.

All of us- you- me- everyone- has the right to worship as we see fit.
All of us- you- me- everyone- has the right to get married.

Your right to worship doesn't conflict with my wife and I- or Sally and Amy's right to get married.

There was a time when it might have been possible to compromise and replace 'civil unions' for marriage- but 'good christians' blocked efforts towards a compromise and frankly that was for the better because we all have a right to marriage- not a right to a 'civil union'.

 

[Syriusly]

Legal marriage has never followed the rules of religion marriage .

What religion approves of justices of the peace ?

There are so many ways that civil marriage violates religious marriage.

Frankly why would anyone expect that a marriage under Buddhism be the same as a marriage under Christianity?

Civil marriage makes the marriages the same in the United States.

 

[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.

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.

Those institutions are called city and county governments.

Like where my wife and I got our marriage licenses.

That is where 'the people agree' represent them.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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?

There is no such thing as ‘same-sex’ marriage – and no one is ‘missing’ anything about an ‘issue’ that is no longer an issue.

Marriage is the union of two consenting adult partners not related to each other in a committed relationship recognized by the state – same- or opposite-sex; marriage unchanged, unaltered, and not ‘redefined.’

Moreover, the issue had nothing to do with the president or any member of Congress – indeed, it had nothing to do with the Federal government save that of the Federal courts which decided the matter, ultimately the Supreme Court.

The conflict was between same-sex couples seeking to enter into marriage contracts they were eligible to participate in and their states of residence, where some states sought to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law in violation of the 14th Amendment.

The Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the 14th Amendment prohibit the states from seeking to disadvantage a class of citizens through force of law for no other reason than who they are – animus toward homosexuals is not a rational basis upon which to deny gay Americans their civil rights; measures which sought to do so were devoid of objective, documented facts and evidence in support and pursued no proper legislative end – and were invalidated by the Supreme Court accordingly.

It was always the understanding and intent of the Framers of the 5th and 14th Amendments that neither the Federal government nor state governments may engage in class legislation (Civil Rights Cases (1883)), where the rights of citizens are safeguarded from the capricious whims and fears of political conflict and controversy, and the fear and bigotry of those who wish to harm a given minority because they are perceived to be ‘different.’

Citizens are at liberty to maintain their subject beliefs, to discriminate against homosexuals in the context of their private lives and participation in private organizations such as churches – but they may not use the authority of government to disadvantage a given class of citizens predicated solely on those subjective beliefs and opinions.

The mistake you make to confuse these two realms, one having nothing to do with the other: the realm of private society, private organizations, and of private individuals not subject to the 14th Amendment jurisprudence of which Obergefell is the progeny, and the realm of civil government subject to the Constitution, its case law, and the rule of law.

 

[emilynghiem]

[QU
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."
?

Sigh.

How is it discrimination to remove references of Christianity and all other religions from public spaces?

Frankly your 'argument' is nonsensical.

All of us- you- me- everyone- has the right to worship as we see fit.
All of us- you- me- everyone- has the right to get married.

Your right to worship doesn't conflict with my wife and I- or Sally and Amy's right to get married.

There was a time when it might have been possible to compromise and replace 'civil unions' for marriage- but 'good christians' blocked efforts towards a compromise and frankly that was for the better because we all have a right to marriage- not a right to a 'civil union'.

Hi Syriusly
If we were to treat BELIEFS equally,
(and not treat "organized religious beliefs" differently from collective POLITICAL/SECULAR BELIEFS)
then the equivalent of removing REFERENCES to Christianity as part of personal and public expression from public institutions
would be the removal of REFERENCES to homosexuality as part of personal and public expression

Currently we are basically saying if 1-4% of the population has a personal belief or way of being
then ALL the public must accept that or it's unfair discrimination to exclude those people.
But when Christians have a personal way of being or expression,
such as prayer that joins with other people and isn't just them individually,
that's IMPOSING on the public. ie "They should keep their way of praying to themselves
and not bring it into public institutions." But when Christians say that about homosexual
relations and expression, it's bigotry intolerance and rejection because of differences in beliefs.

If you listen to people objecting to being harassed by the other side, for their beliefs they feel they
have to defend from constant attack, they both sound equally threatened that the other is "pushing their agenda through govt."

 

[Skylar]

[QU
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."
?

Sigh.

How is it discrimination to remove references of Christianity and all other religions from public spaces?

Frankly your 'argument' is nonsensical.

All of us- you- me- everyone- has the right to worship as we see fit.
All of us- you- me- everyone- has the right to get married.

Your right to worship doesn't conflict with my wife and I- or Sally and Amy's right to get married.

There was a time when it might have been possible to compromise and replace 'civil unions' for marriage- but 'good christians' blocked efforts towards a compromise and frankly that was for the better because we all have a right to marriage- not a right to a 'civil union'.

Hi Syriusly
If we were to treat BELIEFS equally,

'Beliefs' do not hold the standard in our society that you believe they do. Your argument is predicated on the fallacy that the law is bound to any belief by any citizen.

That's not the case. Elections are a contest of competing beliefs. As are adjudication. That you believe your candidate should win doesn't mean they will. That you believe your case has merit doesn't mean it does.

This is the fundamental fallacy of your beliefs. With your argument breaking in the exact same place every time you offer it. You can repeat yourself as often as you'd like....but your argument is still broken.

 

[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.

Those institutions are called city and county governments.

Like where my wife and I got our marriage licenses.

That is where 'the people agree' represent them.

No Syriusly people DIDN'T agree within the same states.
Examples:
* states that passed amendments banning same sex marriage were contested by people who disagreed.
* in Houston/Texas the previous Mayor of Houston singlehandedly CHANGED the city ordinances to
recognize same sex couples benefits the same as traditional married couples and this was argued as
violating and overriding Texas law. Clearly people disagree.
* also in Texas, the law does not recognize a person's ability to change designation of gender to
something other than what was established at birth, so this is a major area of conflict with the bathroom ordinances
if people don't even have the choice to declare themselves the gender that matches them biologically if they go through full transition!

I am saying instead of taking these 50/50 conflicts and forcing one side over the other
through voting by majority or ruling through court, either resolve the conflict or separate jurisdiction and policy.

What I mean by agreement is REAL consensus, not just concession by being coerced politically, like Hawaii giving up its sovereignty by force and not consent.
When it comes toSECURITY issues, like forcing someone with full blown ebola to stay in quarantine against their wishes, that is one thing.
But for issues of belief, where public interest depends on respecting protecting and representing all beliefs and people equally,
the ethical and legal urgency is to write policies by consensus that are fair to all and don't disrupt or destroy public trust or relations and cause unrest as we have now.

Until people on both sides feel equally safe and included, we have a problem that is endangering freedom liberty and equality for all people.

 

[Skylar]

I am saying instead of taking these 50/50 conflicts and forcing one side over the other
through voting by majority or ruling through court, either resolve the conflict or separate jurisdiction and policy.

What I mean by agreement is REAL consensus, not just concession by being coerced politically, like Hawaii giving up its sovereignty by force and not consent.
When it comes toSECURITY issues, like forcing someone with full blown ebola to stay in quarantine against their wishes, that is one thing.
But for issues of belief, where public interest depends on respecting protecting and representing all beliefs and people equally,

Again, belief doesn't hold the supreme authority that you believe it does. That you 'believe' you shouldn't have to pay taxes doesn't mean that you don't have to pay taxes. That you 'believe' that a wild life preserve in Oregon should be open to logging doesn't mean it is.

You're trying to raise the standard of 'belief' alone to that of right. And above law.

It isn't. You can't get around that.

 

[Syriusly]

[QU
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."
?

Sigh.

How is it discrimination to remove references of Christianity and all other religions from public spaces?

Frankly your 'argument' is nonsensical.

All of us- you- me- everyone- has the right to worship as we see fit.
All of us- you- me- everyone- has the right to get married.

Your right to worship doesn't conflict with my wife and I- or Sally and Amy's right to get married.

There was a time when it might have been possible to compromise and replace 'civil unions' for marriage- but 'good christians' blocked efforts towards a compromise and frankly that was for the better because we all have a right to marriage- not a right to a 'civil union'.

Hi Syriusly
If we were to treat BELIEFS equally,
(and not treat "organized religious beliefs" differently from collective POLITICAL/SECULAR BELIEFS)
then the equivalent of removing REFERENCES to Christianity as part of personal and public expression from public institutions
would be the removal of REFERENCES to homosexuality as part of personal and public expression"

I am not even clear on what you think you are saying.

Religious faith is not sexual preference- and vice versa.

 

[Skylar]

[QU
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."
?

Sigh.

How is it discrimination to remove references of Christianity and all other religions from public spaces?

Frankly your 'argument' is nonsensical.

All of us- you- me- everyone- has the right to worship as we see fit.
All of us- you- me- everyone- has the right to get married.

Your right to worship doesn't conflict with my wife and I- or Sally and Amy's right to get married.

There was a time when it might have been possible to compromise and replace 'civil unions' for marriage- but 'good christians' blocked efforts towards a compromise and frankly that was for the better because we all have a right to marriage- not a right to a 'civil union'.

Hi Syriusly
If we were to treat BELIEFS equally,
(and not treat "organized religious beliefs" differently from collective POLITICAL/SECULAR BELIEFS)
then the equivalent of removing REFERENCES to Christianity as part of personal and public expression from public institutions
would be the removal of REFERENCES to homosexuality as part of personal and public expression"

I am not even clear on what you think you are saying.

Religious faith is not sexual preference- and vice versa.

Sigh......the common thread in all of Emily's 'all beliefs are equal' is the elevation of any religious belief to the status of constitutional right beyond the authority of the State or Federal Government to regulate.

This 'sovereign citizen' argument where religion trumps all law is becoming an increasingly common trope among many of the faithful.

 

[Syriusly]

[QU
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."
?

Sigh.

How is it discrimination to remove references of Christianity and all other religions from public spaces?

Frankly your 'argument' is nonsensical.

All of us- you- me- everyone- has the right to worship as we see fit.
All of us- you- me- everyone- has the right to get married.

Your right to worship doesn't conflict with my wife and I- or Sally and Amy's right to get married.

There was a time when it might have been possible to compromise and replace 'civil unions' for marriage- but 'good christians' blocked efforts towards a compromise and frankly that was for the better because we all have a right to marriage- not a right to a 'civil union'.

Hi Syriusly

Currently we are basically saying if 1-4% of the population has a personal belief or way of being
then ALL the public must accept that or it's unfair discrimination to exclude those people.
But when Christians have a personal way of being or expression,
such as prayer that joins with other people and isn't just them individually,
that's IMPOSING on the public. ie "They should keep their way of praying to themselves
and not bring it into public institutions." But when Christians say that about homosexual
relations and expression, it's bigotry intolerance and rejection because of differences in beliefs.

1-4% of the population? Hmmm are you talking about Judaism or Mormonism? Both about that that percentage of our population- both who have the right to worship as they please. And no- you can't exclude Jews or Mormons from your shop because of their beliefs.

Christians are of course free to pray as they will. But if it is a government funded forum- such as a State House or State funded college- then Christians shouldn't be given a preference over any other group- nor should everyone who is not a Christian be forced by circumstances to participate in a Christian prayer.

Now- no one is forcing anyone to participate in a marriage between two persons who happen to be homosexual. They are(in some instances) being required to follow the same laws that require a business to serve Christians and Jews. No discrimination then.

 

[Syriusly]

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.

Those institutions are called city and county governments.

Like where my wife and I got our marriage licenses.

That is where 'the people agree' represent them.

No Syriusly
I am saying instead of taking these 50/50 conflicts and forcing one side over the other
through voting by majority or ruling through court, either resolve the conflict or separate jurisdiction and policy..

I am saying that your concepts are wrong- and bad for America.

The Supreme Court overturned unconstitutional state bans on mixed race marriages in 1967- at a time when the majority of Americans opposed mixed race relations. It would be more than 20 years before most Americans believed that mixed race couples had a right to marry. Even now a sizeable minority still objects to mixed race marriages- and by the way- 'civil unions' or your variation would not change their view.

The Constitution is there- for among other reasons- to protect Americans from those who would deny them there rights.
The Supreme Court was right- and there is no need to change marriage- mine or anyone elses.

 

[emilynghiem]

[QU
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."
?

Sigh.

How is it discrimination to remove references of Christianity and all other religions from public spaces?

Frankly your 'argument' is nonsensical.

All of us- you- me- everyone- has the right to worship as we see fit.
All of us- you- me- everyone- has the right to get married.

Your right to worship doesn't conflict with my wife and I- or Sally and Amy's right to get married.

There was a time when it might have been possible to compromise and replace 'civil unions' for marriage- but 'good christians' blocked efforts towards a compromise and frankly that was for the better because we all have a right to marriage- not a right to a 'civil union'.

Hi Syriusly
If we were to treat BELIEFS equally,

'Beliefs' do not hold the standard in our society that you believe they do. Your argument is predicated on the fallacy that the law is bound to any belief by any citizen.

That's not the case. Elections are a contest of competing beliefs. As are adjudication. That you believe your candidate should win doesn't mean they will. That you believe your case has merit doesn't mean it does.

This is the fundamental fallacy of your beliefs. With your argument breaking in the exact same place every time you offer it. You can repeat yourself as often as you'd like....but your argument is still broken.

Dear Syriusly
On the contrary I'm finding more and more that people on both left and right
are unable to separate their beliefs from law and govt.

That is why both sides are fighting so hard to defend their beliefs.
They believe they are representing what is true across the board and should be protected for everyone!

 

[Norman]

I would like to remind you that these people applaud the muslim ideology. The ideology which states gay people should be stoned.

That about explains how much they truly care about them.

 

[Syriusly]

I would like to remind you that these people applaud the muslim ideology. The ideology which states gay people should be stoned.

That about explains how much they truly care about them.

'these people'?

Who are 'these people'?

 

[Norman]

I would like to remind you that these people applaud the muslim ideology. The ideology which states gay people should be stoned.

That about explains how much they truly care about them.

'these people'?

Who are 'these people'?

Do you really have to ask?

Liberal regressives, obviously. Damn, the one time I forget to add that in I will get asked what I mean. Better be more consistent from now on.

 

[emilynghiem]

I would like to remind you that these people applaud the muslim ideology. The ideology which states gay people should be stoned.

That about explains how much they truly care about them.

Dear Norman
The common factor is people are bypassing and ignoring "natural laws" when actions are taken
carry out or execute "judgment and punishment" without DUE PROCESS
ie acting as judge jury and executioner instead of separating powers
and going through the DEMOCRATIC process of
a. first telling the ACCUSED what the charges are
b. allowing them defense, where innocence is assumed until proven guilty
with the burden of proof on the accuser
c. NOT depriving anyone of liberty and NOT forcing servitude or other punishment
without first CONVICTING them of a crime or violation using PROPER due process

The Jihadists more blatantly violate due process by dominating or bypassing the
accusation/prosecution process and "fast forwarding" to stoning/beheadings
by their verbal declarations only. No trial, no proceedings, not even an AGREEMENT on what the laws are
to begin with they decide to enforce.

What is more subtle
is how people in general violate "due process"
by declaring judgments or punishments on each other
by their perceptions and opinions alone.

We don't like when people judge and reject/punish us by their accusations alone!
WE demand to defend our reputations and argue back, that no, we aren't the
ones in the wrong, but our accusers are unfair in their assessments and condemnations.

Yet this happens all the time.

When it translates into political action and govt laws, it becomes a Constitutional violation.

If we don't recognize when we have passed judgment on others,
without going through due process to PROVE anyone was guilty of violating law
and thus DESERVED to be deprived of liberty because of such a proven violation,
we run the risk of abusing govt to carry out our personal judgments
but without legally following procedures of proving a crime was committed
that merits depriving THOSE guilty citizens of liberty (not collectively punishing the entire public).

The other way to change laws legally would be to PROVE the people consented first
by the people or states approving amendments to the Constitution granting added powers to federal govt.

Both of these have been BYPASSED by liberal politicians who aren't as
schooled or committed to upholding Constitutional principles as their conservative counterparts
they blame for "obstruction" when they try to overcome this.
Instead of resolving the REASON for objections the right way, by REDRESSING GRIEVANCES
and revising laws by CONSENT, they have bypassed objections by abusing Courts
and Congress to get a "majority rule" even at the expense of equal protection of beliefs
on both sides of a dispute. So this is NOT the proper way to resolve a conflict where BELIEFS are involved.

Being of different BELIEFS, when BOTH sides are equally FAITH BASED and can't be counted as more right or wrong by govt, is NOT justification for depriving one side of liberty over the other.

But that's what happens when people project their "personal beliefs and judgment" onto govt and law
as both Syriusly and I were saying should not take place!

We don't like when WE are judged or punished for our beliefs that the other group doesn't agree with, but do we excuse it when it happens the other way?

 

[rightwinger]

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

 

[emilynghiem]

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.

Those institutions are called city and county governments.

Like where my wife and I got our marriage licenses.

That is where 'the people agree' represent them.

No Syriusly
I am saying instead of taking these 50/50 conflicts and forcing one side over the other
through voting by majority or ruling through court, either resolve the conflict or separate jurisdiction and policy..

I am saying that your concepts are wrong- and bad for America.

The Supreme Court overturned unconstitutional state bans on mixed race marriages in 1967- at a time when the majority of Americans opposed mixed race relations. It would be more than 20 years before most Americans believed that mixed race couples had a right to marry. Even now a sizeable minority still objects to mixed race marriages- and by the way- 'civil unions' or your variation would not change their view.

The Constitution is there- for among other reasons- to protect Americans from those who would deny them there rights.
The Supreme Court was right- and there is no need to change marriage- mine or anyone elses.

Syriusly Whoa, you are missing the point that RACE is different from orientation and transgender.
Orientation and transgender identify have been known to CHANGE on a spiritual level DIFFERENT from the physical level. This cannot be said of RACE which is genetic and not changed by spiritual healing or any other psychological or spiritual process as has happened with orientation.

I can cite CASES of people changing orientation, and coming out transgender or gay after having been married and maintaining hetereosexual relations even to the extent of having children and families together.
I can cite CASES of people changing to hetereosexual, and I personally know two people where one came out transgender after spiritual healing and the other dropped the transgender impulses and decided to stay as a male and not change as his father had before him to a woman.

I have NEVER heard of someone "changing race" to something other
than what they were genetically born. Maybe designation can change
such as whether someone born in Egypt is declared white or black.
But physically their genetics will even be specific to not just RACE but their NATIONALITY
where HLA between Egyptians has a higher chance of matching pure blooded Egyptians,
Nigerians with Nigerians, Vietnamese with Vietnamese, and mixed races have a better
chance of matching HLA if the donor is the same mix (ie Irish-Indian in a case I found on the Internet).

You cannot change the genetics of RACE the same way orientation
can be changed and is FAITH BASED.

It is NOT proven by science what orientation someone is that remains FAITH BASED.

Please do NOT try to equate these two
which is causing a MAJOR PROBLEM.

This is where FAITH BASED arguments have mixed into government.

No one on the side of defending same sex marriage by arguing against Christians as "faith based"
has ever dared to bring up spiritual healing because it introduces the fact that
people have changed orientation by this process. It shows arguments and beliefs
on BOTH sides are "faith based" so this is CONVENIENTLY left out.

Orientation is NOT the same as RACE.

If you don't believe me, Syriusly, I will not only challenge you in the Bullring
but I'd love to bet you 10 million dollars so I can use that money for charity projects
I have to raise money for anyway.

If you have good causes you'd like to raise 10 million for, let's make a bet
that RACE is genetic, determined by the two parents even BEFORE birth, and cannot be changed but
homosexuality/orientation is spiritual and may or may not change,
and at most there can be shown to be a predilection in the genetics
but it is not FIXED by genetics. The studies on identical twins shows at most 53% chance
of both twins being the same orientation; so it isn't 100% genetic as race is always determined
by the genes of both parents, even before being born so prenatal conditions are ruled out.
In the case of homosexuality or gender identification, it could be that in the womb some
chemical or hormonal changes could affect the individual's orientation or gender ID;
but again this is not true of RACE, where it cannot change by conditions in the womb
or by external factors later (such as people who "became" homosexual after sexual abuse
after they were born and later "changed back" to heterosexual after healing and recovering from the abuse).

Syriusly if THIS issue is the main reason we are arguing
that you equate it with RACE and I am saying RACE is not faith based
as gender/orientation is, then we can resolve this scientifically.

Please let me know if you have charities you would like to raise 10 milion for,
and I am happy to make a 10 million dollar bet. Even Neil Warren the CEO founder of
eharmony was planning to invest millions of dollars in resolving this homosexual issue that
is getting mixed in with legal requirements and forced changes in his company he found unfair but
complied anyway with govt.

IF you are right, and "race and orientation are both equally genetic to each other and cannot be changed," I will raise and donate 10 million to your choices of charities.

If you are wrong on this, you can raise the 10 million for the liberal charities I can't get liberals progressives and Democrats to fund, instead of having to work two jobs to cover the costs myself.

I would love to retire and let you raise money for progressive causes.
The 10M plan I had was to buy out real estate, and set up a longterm sustainable endowment to support
nonprofits including public radio, rescuing missing victims from trafficking or other crimes,
and media education to schools to promote diversity, conflict resolution and inclusion for Constitutional ethics.
By renting out the historic houses as office spaces to create jobs for disabled Vets to do fundraising
and development, this would solve several problems at once to stop dependence on govt by setting up
nonprofits to be self sufficient by training volunteers to have the same business and financial experience
as the corporate investors who use their wealth to become independent instead of relying on govt.

Trouble is, I can hardly find liberals to back this plan because they are so entrenched in depending on govt!
Few even believe they can break out of poverty by owning and managing their own districts as this plan
would lead.

I'd love it if you were impulsive enough to make this bet without researching it further,
assuming that Race and Orientation are equally determined genetically and can't be changed
instead of looking into cases where orientation has changed and noting these are different!

Sadly I think you are too thoughtful and smart, and know these are not the same
and know it can be proven they are not!

If we can resolve at least this issue, that's one step.
There are still other reasons you disagree with me, mostly the
bias against Christian beliefs especially the process of spiritual healing
that has changed people's orientation. I believe this proves there is a
spiritual process involved and that's why govt cannot make a hard rule
as with race that can be scientifically to be determined by the race of
the parents even before birth and is not a "choice" anyone can change.

This is NOT the same as homosexuality and orientation.

Sorry but this needs to be clarified to show why the arguments are different!

 

[Seawytch]

I would like to remind you that these people applaud the muslim ideology. The ideology which states gay people should be stoned.

That about explains how much they truly care about them.

The ideology which states gay people should be stoned? That's in the bible. What passages in the Quran call for the stoning of gays?

Do you live in America because I do and in America, Muslims like gays better than Evangelical Christians do.